DEVELOPMENT OF A TUBULAR FABRIC FILTER

DEVELOPMENT OF A TUBULAR FABRIC FILTER-PHASE II-

by

Michael K . StenstromAssociate Professor

and Principal Investigator

Hamid R. VazirinejadPost Graduate Research Engineer

and

Seth D. AbramsonPost Graduate Research Engineer

Water Resources ProgramSchool of Engineering and Applied ScienceUniversity of California, Los Angeles

A Final Report to The Naval Civil Engineering Laboratories, Port Hueneme, CA .,for Contract N62583/81 M R716 . UCLA-ENG-83-01 .

Table of Contentspage

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS *2ABSTRACT 3

LIST OF FIGURES 4

LIST OF TABLES 6

INTRODUCTION 7

E%PERIMENrAL DESIGN • . . . •10Fabric Types 10Apparatus Description 11Analytical Methods 19Modes of Operation

o

. . . . 21RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ••• • . • •22

Reverse Flow Results •• . . . . 23Type I Fabric 24Washed Type I Fabric 28Type IV Fabric 29Type V Fabric 37

Cross Flow Results 37Type I Fabric 40Type IV Fabric 44

Coagulation/Flocculation Results Jar Tests

44Coagulation/Filtration Results •51Fouling Factor Results o • • •60

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 63REFERENCES 67APPENDIX 68

List of Appendix Figures 69List of Appendix Tables •• . . 72

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This work was supported by the U . S . Naval Civil Engineering Laboratoriesunder Contract N62583/81 M R716 . The helpful suggestions and patience of Mr .Ted Kuepper are gratefully acknowledged .

2

ABSTRACT

This report describes the second phase of the development of a tubularfabric filter device . An earlier report was issued in September, 1981 (UCLA-ENGR-81-41) and describes the first phase of development .

In the second phase evaluation of two of the three original methods ofbackwashing/filtration continued with increased experimental control overlonger periods of operation . A second type of feed water, containing only ACroad test dirt was evaluated, and two additional fabrics, a fire hose linercalled Type IV, and a new membrane material, called Type V, were introduced .

No improvements in backwashing efficiency were obtained with the crossflow technique during the second phase . Extended runs were performed with thereverse flow technique, resulting in run times of several hundred minutes .Gradually declining fluxes were noted and were not correctable by simplebackwashing . To determine if the declining fluxes were reversible, two sec-tions of Type I fabric were removed from the filter and washed in an ordinarywashing machine with BIZ enzyme detergent and hot water . The enzyme detergentwash restored most of the original filter flux .

The detergent plus AC road test dirt was the most severe feed water andfouled the filter fabrics many times faster that the dirt-only feed water .The Type I fabric was the most effective fabric for filtration and was moreeasily backwashed than the Type IV . The Type V fabric did not sufficientlyreduce turbidity to be an effective filter . The lack of efficiency was prob-ably due to leakage at the tube seam, which was also problematic with Type IIand Type III fabrics in the previous phase .

The last part of the phase investigated pretreatment of feed waters withcoagulants to precipitate and destabilize the detergent and road dirt parti-cles . Coagulation with aluminum sulfate with pH control using concentratedsodium hydroxide was very effective, extending filter run time beyond athousand minutes, but coagulant and sodium hydroxide requirements were highand may be too high for some mobile military applications .

3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Fabric Types .

Figure 2 Detail of Flange Arrangements .

Figure 3 Filter Apparatus .

Figure 4 Filter Schematic Diagram .

Figure 5 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 1 . (Type I Fabric, reverseflow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 6 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 1 . (Type I Fabric,reverse flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 7 Total Filtered Volume (gal/ft 2 ) versus Time for Test 1 .

(Type IFabric, reverse flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 8 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 3 . (washed Type IFabric, reverse flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 9 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 9 . (Type I Fabric, reverseflow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 10 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 9 . (Type I Fabric,reverse flow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 11 Total Filtered Volume (gal/ft 2) versus Time for Test 9 .

(Type IFabric, reverse flow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 12 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 5 . (Type IV Fabric, reverseflow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 13 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 5 .

(Type IVFabric, reverse flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .



Figure 15 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 11 . (Type IV Fabric, reverseflow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .


(Type IVFabric, reverse flow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 17 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 4 . (Type I Fabric, crossflow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 18 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 4 . (Type I Fabric,reverse flow, detergent and AC road dirt wastewater) .

4

Figure 19 Total Filtered Volume (gal/ft2 ) versus Time for Test 4 .

(Type IFabric, cross flow, and detergent and AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 20 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 7 . (Type IV Fabric, crossflow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .


(Type IVFabric, reverse flow, detergent and AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 22 Turbidity versus Coagulant Dose . (Alum coagulant without pH con-trol) .

Figure 23 Turbidity Tgrsus Sodium Sulfonate Dose . (Varying sodium sulfonatewith 50 mg/l Al ) .

Figure 24 Turbidity versus Coagulant Dose . (Varying Alum dosage with 10 mg/lsodium sulfonate) .

Figure 25 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 12 . (Type I Fabric,flow, and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

reverse

Figure 26 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 12 . (Type IFabric, reverse flow, and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt waste-water) .

Figure 27 Filter Cake adhering to Filter Fabric . (Filter Test 12, reverseflow, Type I Fabric, and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewa-ter) .

Figure 28 Air/Water Back Wash . (Filter Test 12, reverse flow, Type I Fabric,and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 29 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 13 . (Type I Fabric, reverseflow, pH control, and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewa-ter) .

Figure 30 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 13 . (Type IFabric, reverse flow, pH control, and coagulated detergent plus AC roaddirt wastewater) .

5

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Ratios of Areas of Granular Media Filters to Fabric Filters at Vari-ous Filtration Rates .

Table 2 AC Road Dirt Size Specifications .

Table 3 Military Detergent Specifications .

Table 4 Filtration Test Summary .

Table 5 Fouling Factor Test Summary .

6

INTRODUCTION

This report describes the second phase of the development of a tubular

fabric filter device . An earlier report was issued in September, 1981 (1) and

describes the first phase of development .

The objectives of both investigations were to develop the concept of a

light weight filter to be used in removing colloidal and suspended materials

from laundry and shower wastewaters as well as natural waters . The filtered

water would then be suitable for use as feed water for reverse osmosis or for

direct recycle applications . The use of a fabric filter media is critical to

the success of this project, since the filter must be sufficiently light and

compact to be transported easily by truck or air cargo .

The tubular fabric concept also has significant advantages over granular

media filters because of media surface area savings . Since the fabric filter

mechanism is predominately a surface phenomena, the fabric filter does not

require a deep media, and a sheet of fabric, perhaps 1/32 to 1/4 inch thick,

provides excellent filtration efficiency . Particle removal occurs at the

fabric surface or within the fabric itself . Conversely, granular filters

require deep filter beds since deep floc penetration is required for economi-

cal operation .

To obtain economical fabric filter operation, backwashing techniques

using a small water volume are required . This need results from the limited

volume available to store materials removed from the wastewater, and if the

materials are not removed from the filter surface, blinding can occur very

rapidly . After effective backwashing techniques are developed, the fabric

7

filter will provide a large area savings over granular filters . To show this

difference in superficial area (surface area required for a filter device, not

the area available for filtration) Table 1 shows the ratio of area required

for a granular filter to the area required for a fabric filter, at various

filtration rates (flow rate per unit of filter area) which illustrates the

superficial area savings .

TABLE 1 RATIOS OF AREAS OF GRANULAR MEDIA FILIRS TO FABRIC FILTERSAT VARIOUS FILTRATION RATES .

GRANULAR

TUBULAR FABRIC FIIPATION RATEFILTRATION

(GPM/ft )RATE

(GPM/ft 2)0 .025

0 .050

0 .10

0 .20

0 .50

1 .0

2.0 (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)

1 .0

2 .25

4.50

9 .0

10 .

45 .

90.

180 .1 .5

1 .50

3 .00

6.0

12 .

30 .

60 .

120.2 .0

1 .13

2 .26

5 .5

11 .

28 .

55 .

110 .2 .5

0 .90

1 .80

3 .6

7.2

18.

36.

72.3 .0

0 .75

1 .50

3 .0

6.0

15 .

30.

60.3 .5

0 .65

1 .30

2.6

5 .2

13 .

26.

52 .4 .0

0 .56

1 .12

2.2

4.5

11.

22.

45 .5 .0 0 .45 0 .90 1 .8 3 .6 9 . 18 . 36 .6 .00 .380 .761 .53 .08 .15 .30 .

+Numbers represent ratios of the superficial area of the tubular filterto superficial are of the granular filter . Numbers greater than unityshow as area savings for the tubular fabric filer . (For example : assum-ing a granular filtration rate of 6 GPM/ft (column 1) and a tubularfabric filtration rate of 0 .5 GPM/ft (column 6), the fabric filterequipment would require one-eight the area required of the granular mediafilter .)

In the first phase of the project three types of fabric were evaluated

with three types of filtering/contacting methods . The most successful method

was reverse filtration (externally pressurized) where the liquid flowed from

the outside of the fabric tubes to the inside, where it exited the unit as

8

product water . Operation in this fashion required that the tubes be supported

from within and that a reverse pressure gradient be developed . Backwashing

was accomplished by pressurizing the inside of the tubes, reversing the flow,

which expanded the fabric pores allowing the entrapped solids to be removed .

Cross flow and closed-end filtration (internally pressurized) were less effec-

tive and it was not possible to effectively remove the trapped solids and

restore filter flux.

The second phase of the investigation was initiated with the objective

of further evaluating the effectiveness of backwashing techniques, with par-

ticular emphasis on the reverse flow method . A second objective was to evalu-

ate fabric life and two additional fabric types .

To further evaluate the reverse flow technique it was necessary to con-

struct a new experimental apparatus, which would apply uniform, constant

filtering and backwashing pressures . In the earlier phase it was necessary to

use a pulsating suction pump to create negative gage pressures on the inside

of the filter tubes during reverse filtration . The pulsating nature of the

flow caused the filters to vibrate, which reduced filtration efficiency .

Two new columns were constructed to permit positive gage pressure to be

applied to both side of the filter fabric . Additionally, the dead volume of

the columns was reduced to allow for more precise measurements of operating

conditions .

9

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

The experimental apparatus used in this phase was conceptually very

similar to the_ original apparatus described earlier (1), although a number of

mechanical modifications and refinements were made . The major modifications

were a reduction in the size of the filter volume and closure of the entire

filter vessel to allow pressurization .

Fabric Types

The Type I fabric described in the earlier report was also used in this

phase . It is a medium weave polyester which has easily discernible weave but

very few observable imperfections . It is woven without a seam in continuous

lengths . The second fabric used is a commercial fire hose liner and is

called Type IV, and is more coarsely woven and much thicker than Type I

fabric . It is a polypropylene material and is woven without a seam in con-

tinuous lengths . The third type of fabric is a thin membrane fabric which has

a theoretical pore size of 5 microns, and is woven in sheets, which required

cutting and sewing to provide a tubular structure . This material is called

Type V . Fabric Types II and III were used in the previous phase (1), and were

not used in this phase . All fabrics were supplied by the Naval Civil

Engineering Laboratories to UCLA.

The Type I material was selected for continued development because of

its success in the earlier phase and its low cost . Type IV fabric was

evaluated because it had better structural properties allowing it to be used

with higher pressures . Type V fabric was evaluated in hope that it would allow

easier backwashing due to its thin woven structure . Figure 1 shows the three

10

fabric types .

Apparatus Descrivtion,

Two new filter columns were constructed from plexiglass tubing, 4 inch

i .d . by 1/4 inch wall thickness . The columns were fitted with flanges and "0"

rings on both ends, and sampling taps were made through the column

each flange . A special set of flanges was made to fit between the column

flange and outermost flange to provide support for the filters and a passage

way for filtered water . Several different combinations were used until a

satisfactory arrangement was found . Leakage was frequently a problem and was

caused by the variations in tube diameter . Figure 2 shows the final flange

arrangement used in the phase .

The filter was repiped to allow one pump to provide both feed water and

backwash water . The centrifugal circulating pump was retained to allow cross

flow operation . Figure 3 shows the apparatus and Figure 4 is a schematic

diagram of the filter with its associated pumps and instrumentation . The

apparatus is completely contained on a single rolling platform, with the

exception of the feed tank .

The fabric tubes were 5 .33 ft long and provided a surface area normal to

flow of 1 .40 ft 2 . The tubes were attached to the end flanges with a ribbed

hose adapter and secured with worm-gear hose clamps . In the earlier phase it

was discovered that leakage occurred when using smooth hose adapters . To

assemble the filter without over stretching the fabrics, each tube was cut

about 1 inch longer than the space between flanges, to provide sufficient

slack .

11

wall near

))

@~~N

~~ ~w~

~~~~~

NN~N ‚~‚~~~~ d~~~~0-

Figure I

FabricTypes

.~~~~~~

~~

~

~

/)

/.

//

)/

V,,~A000,004ZrAd,0WAj IVAO600,A

Rolr;,,.

I

I

I

i%'ir iA am?

Vr,~

0 SC

SC

v~/ l o

Irkrr,,~ o

Figure 2 Detail of Flange Arrangements .

13

1 . RIBBED TUBE ADAPTERS3/4" BOLT TO HOLDASSEMBLY IN PLACE

3. SPACER FLANGES

4. SAMPLE CONNECTION

"O" RINGS

/(

(/

((

<(

.

TAP WATERRESERVOIR

TO DRAIN

PRODUCTRESERVOIR

METERINGPUMP

Figure 4 Filter Schematic Diagram .

D

ROTOMETER

VA

t0t

ELECTRIC BALL VALVE

4D 4 -->4

BYPASS VALVE

-1 1--

CONTAMINANTRESERVOIR

MASTER FLEXPUMP

BACKWASHPUMP

BACKWASHRESERVOIR

To operate the filter, the reservoir was first filled with tap water and

allowed to stand until it reached room temperature, which was in the range of

65 to 75‚C . The main feed pump, a Viking gear pump with variable speed DC

motor, was adjusted to provide the desired flow rate . In the earlier phase a

range of filtration rates were evaluated . For all tests performed in this

phase, filtration rate was held constant at 0 .5 GPM/ft2 . This was done in

order to minimize experimental variables and concentrate on evaluation of

fouling rate and backwash efficiency . For the cross flow mode the initial

filtration rate was 0 .5 GPM/ft2 , but declined to nearly zero as the test pro-

gressed, due to fouling of the fabrics .

The contaminants were introduced on the discharge side of the Viking

pump using a variable speed Masterfiex peristaltic pump . Concentrated con-

taminant solution was made by adding 123 .0 grams of "AC" road dirt and 532 .0

grams of military detergent to 40 liters of tap water . For "dirt-only" waste-

water, only the AC road dirt solution was added . Any desired contaminant con-

centration could be obtained by changing the Masterflex pump flow rate . The

normal flow rate to obtain 636 mg/l detergent and 147 mg/l dirt concentration

was 0 .0682 GPM (252 .9 ml/min) of concentrated contaminant solution . For the

detergent plus road dirt wastewater, the average turbidity was 24 .5 NTU, rang-

ing from 23 to 26, and the pH averaged 8 .6 . For the road dirt only wastewater

the turbidity averaged 15 . NTU, ranging from 14 to 16 . The pH of the dirt only

wastewater was not changed from the pH of the tap water used in making it, and

ranged from 6 .8 to 7 .0 .

The road dirt is a product manufactured by the AC spark plug division of

General Motors from an Arizona clay source . It is a standard material for use

16

in evaluation of air cleaners in simulated driving conditions . The road dirt

is manufactured by sizing clay dust and the particle size distribution is

shown in Table 2 .

The military detergent is a nonionic detergent used regularly by several

branches of the military for laundries . An exact analysis of the detergent

was not available, but the specifications are shown in Table 3 . The military

detergent was selected for evaluation with AC road dirt because it resembles

the wastewaters expected in field application .

TABLE 2 AC ROAD DIRT SIZE SPECIFICATIONS

Size Range Size Fraction (microns)(%)

0-5

12 ± 2

5-10 12 ± 3

10-20 14 ± 3

20-40 23 ± 4

40-80 30 ± 3

80-200

9 t 9

+ Size distribution in weight percent from a roller analysis .

AC Spark Plug Division of General Motors, Flint, Mich .,USA

17

TABLE 3 SPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE 1 MILITARY DETERGENT +

+ The specifications further require that the surfactant be a "nonionic, syn-thetic, organic surfactant, produced by the reaction of linear primaryalcohols or linear secondary alcohols with ethylene oxide ."

Backwashing was automated through the use of a timer and pressure

switch, but automatic operation was seldom possible due to a variety of chang-

ing experimental conditions . A differential pressure switch, which was not

18

Type ILow sudsinglow phosphate

Requirements Min . Max

0Moisture and matter volatile at 105 C, % 10 .0Nonionic Surfactant, 100% active, % 15 .0Chloroform soluble matter, % 22 .0Free Alkali, as NaOH, % 1 .0Matter Insoluble in hard water, % - 1 .0Total Phosphate, as P, % 76 8 .7Total Phosphate, asP2O5 , % 17 .4 20 .Polyphosphate, as P Og , % 17 .4 20 .0Orthophosphate, as 0 5 , % - 2 .0Silicates, as SiO , 4 .4 6 .6Sodium Carboxymetiylcellulose, 100% active 0 .5Borax, as Na B407 x 5H20, %Optical brig tener (fluorescent dye)pH of 0 .1% solution

0present

9 .5 11 .5Sudsing, ml of foam at 100 F 30 .Bulk Density, grams/ml 0 .6Biodegradability, % 90 .

Properties ofNonionic surfactants

For detergent Type IMin

Max

Active Ingredient content, % '99 .0Alkyl carbon range C10 C12

Average moles of ethylene oxide 5 8Molecular weight, avg . 480 550Cloud Point F

0 90 140Flash point, COC,

F 250Biodegradability, % 90

available in time for the phase, was required to precisely control the fil-

tration and backwashing cycles . Backwashing was normally performed with tap

water, since no storage was available for product water . Both the Viking gear

pump and the centrifugal pump were used for backwash .

A typical filter test would begin early in the morning after filling the

feed reservoir on the previous day . Elapsed time was monitored by stop-watch

and manual recordings were made throughout the test . The time for backwashing

was not included in elapsed time . Samples for analysis were collected and

stored at room temperature for periods of several minutes up to several hours .

Many of the tests were continued into subsequent days if the filter clogging

rate was low . In these cases the filter was shut down with the column filled

with feed solution and operation was resumed the next day .

Analytical Methods,

The basic analytical method used in this procedure was turbidity, and

was measured on a HF Model DBT 100 Turbidity meter . Standardization was per-

formed at the beginning of each day's analysis . Total Organic Carbon (TOC)

and Total Oxygen Demand (TOD) analysis were performed on an Ionics Model 1270

Analyzer . Calibration was performed during each series of analyses . Normal

procedure was to remove inorganic carbon (dissolved C0 2 and carbonates) by

acidifying the sample to pH 1 .0 or less with hydrochloric acid and stripping

with high purity nitrogen gas . In early analyses it was noted that stripping

removed a significant quantity of detergent ; at this point it was decided to

change to Total Carbon (TC) analysis, which was performed on the same instru-

ment, but without stripping and acidification .

19

Surface tension was measured on a Fisher Tensiomat device, Model 21

calibration against deionized tap water . Flow rates and pressure changes were

measured with rotometers and process-quality pressure gages . Flow meters were

calibrated manually by measuring the time required to fill a container of

known volume . The pressure gages were not calibrated, but several gages were

selected of the same manufacture and type which gave identical readings for

identical pressures . The same gages were used throughout all tests .

Fouling tests were performed with Whatman glass fiber filters, type

GF/C . The normal procedure was to collect filtered water during the tests for

analysis after test completion . Tests of unfiltered and filtered water were

run simultaneously to eliminate the effects of differences in vacuum pressure .

The glass fiber filters were placed in Gilman 47 mm filter holders and

attached to a standard laboratory vacuum pump . Test solution was poured into

the filter flask and allowed to filter until a specific volume was passed . The

time required for filtration was recorded, and was indicative of the water's

fouling properties which would occur in a reverse osmosis process .

Coagulation tests (jar tests) were performed on a six spindle gang

stirrer using one liter beakers . Normal procedure was to add the desired

coagulating chemicals to each one-liter beaker containing wastewater, then mix

simultaneously at high rate (100 rpm) for 20 seconds, then flocculate for 20

minutes at a very gentle mixing rate (30 rpm), then turn off the stirrer and

allow the mixture to settle for 30 minutes . When pH control was used, the

coagulants were added and mixed on a magnetic stirrer while adding sodium

hydroxide to raise the pH to the desired level . After obtaining the desired

pH, the beaker was placed on the gang stirrer .

20

Modes of Operation

The filter was originally operated in three modes : closed-end, cross

flow, and reverse flow . The closed-end and cross flow are internally pressur-

ized while the reverse flow is externally pressurized . The closed-end method

was the simplest procedure . Liquid was pumped into the top of the column and

all liquid must flow through the filter fabric . Consequently, this method was

a constant flow, increasing pressure method . Backwashing was accomplished by

reversing flow . This method was the least successful of the three methods in

the first phase, and was not selected for further development in the second

phase .

The cross flow method extends the closed-end method by allowing the

influent flow to return to a collection vessel . Liquid from the collection

vessel was pumped back into the column with a high-volume centrifugal pump,

which increased the velocity and turbulence inside the filter tubes . It was

hoped that the high cross flow velocities would scour the inside of the

filters and prevent the build up of solids . The internal area of the fabric

tubes available for liquid flow was 0 .3479 in2 , after deducting 0 .4375 in2

used for the internal supports . The Reynolds number was 6000 . For two of the

cross flow tests conducted in this phase, a length of 1/2 inch PVC pipe

(external diameter 7/8 in) was inserted into the fabric tubes, reducing the

internal area, and increasing turbulence to a Reynolds number of 11,300 . It

was hoped that the increased turbulence would maintain fabric permeability .

Backwashing was performed in the same manner as in the closed-end method .

21

In the experimental set-up used for cross flow operation, the total flow

to the filter (influent and cross flow) was maintained at a constant value ;

however, flow through the filter fabric declined with increased clogging .

System pressure increased during the test . This resulted in increasing pres-

sure, declining rate operation . An alternate method of cross flow operation,

which controls the flow of return liquid, ensuring constant filtration rate

was not attempted, since a flow controller was not available .

The reverse-flow method was entirely different than the previous two

methods since liquid was introduced on the outside of the fabrics and flowed

radially inward through the fabric . The valving of the experimental apparatus

was designed to permit flow direction change without disassembling the filter .

To backwash, liquid was introduced inside the tubes, and flowed entirely

through the fabric . The procedure was termed reverse flow because it was very

similar to closed-end operation, with the location of the wastewater and

backwash water reversed .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Experiments were performed on the Type I and Type IV fabrics in a sys-

tematic way to provide an evaluation of two filter modes (reverse and cross

flow) and two wastewaters (detergent plus road dirt and road dirt only) .

Additionally, coagulated detergent/dirt wastewater was filtered in the reverse

flow mode with Type I fabric . Washed Type I fabric was evaluated once in the

reverse flow mode with detergent/dirt wastewater, and the new membrane

fabric, Type V, was evaluated once in the reverse flow mode with

detergent/dirt wastewater .

Table 4 summarizes the test modes, fabrics, and

22

TESTNUMBERS

(1)

Detergent andAC Road Dirt

AC Road Dirtonly

Coagulated Detergentand AC Road Dirt (nopH control)

Coagulated Detergentand AC Road Dirtwith pH control

+ Tests 4 and 7 used the PVC pipe insert which increased the ReynoldsNumber to 11,300 .

Reverse Flow Results

The reverse flow results obtained in this part of the fabric filter con-

cept development were the most promising results obtained so far . Filter runs

far in excess of anything previously obtained with cross flow or closed-end

flow were made .

23

(2) (3) (4)

Type I Reverse 1,2

Type I Reverse 3(washed)Type I Cross flow+ 4

Type IV Reverse 5,6Type IV Cross flow+ 7

Membrane Reverse 8(Type V)

Type I Reverse 9

Type I Cross flow 10

Type IV Reverse 11

Type I Reverse 12

I I II I( Type I I Reverse I 13I I II I I

wastewater types .TABLE 4 FILTRATION TEST SUMMARY

WASTEWATER FABRIC FILTRATIONTYPE MODE

Tvve I_ Fabric Figures 5-7 show the results of Test 1 (reverse flow, Type I,

and detergent plus AC road dirt), indicating pressure drop, effluent turbi-

dity, and total volume filtered . Tabular data for this filter test and others

not shown in the text are included in Appendix A.

Figure 5 shows the effluent turbidity versus time . The filter reduced

the turbidity from the influent value of 24 .5 NTU to an minimum of approxi-

mately 5 NTU during the first 12 cycles, and declined to less than 4 NTU in

the last 6 cycles . Average effluent turbidity was approximately 6 NTII . The

separate "peaks and valleys" represent complete filter cycles, including

backwashes . The time included for backwashing was not included in elapsed

time . The initial decline in turbidity with subsequent increase is charac-

teristic of many filters which have "dynamic" membrane or filter media for-

mation . Granular media (sand, coal, and garnet sand) filters also show this

behavior, as well as many other types of filters and reverse osmosis mem-

branes . The filtered material which collects on the surface of the fabric

acts as a filter itself, and increases removal efficiency . After a short

period the pressure drop increases and forces turbidity causing material

through the fabric . This behavior is also typical of other types of filters .

Figure 6 shows the pressure drop as a function of time . Back washing

restores the pressure drop to the static pressure loss, as shown in the fig-

ure, and with other types of filters it is normally a sign of excellent

backwashing ; however, it is not indicative of backwashing performance for this

investigation, since the backwashing requires depressurizing the filter . Res-

tarting the filter will always reduce the pressure to the static pressure

drop, even if no filter cleaning has occurred .

A better indication of

24

Lu u

1

JIUU U v uua u-vr UjU di

1~VVV

'I

240 .00

300.00

360.00

TIME (MIN)

Figure 5 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 1 . (Type I Fabric .flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

4P

420 .00

480.00

540.00

600.00

reverse

1

V

00

cb .00

60.00

120.00 180 .00

240.00

300.00

360.00TIME (MIN)

420 .00

480.00

540.00

Figure 6 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 1 . (Type I Fabric,reverse flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

e

V

0

O

600 .00

NV

1 1 1 1

OOOIn-

OOOOm

QWCCOQOO

wLn-UNQLLa:O=OtooOLA- CM0HOU-0

Ln-C;4(

JO

Cr-9oUo

W

MOJoO~-

93 .00 60 .00 120 .00

100.00 240 .00

300.00

360.00TIME (MIN)

420 .00

480.00

540.00

600 .00

Figure 7 Total Filtered Volume (gal/ft 2 ) versus Time for Test 1 .

(Type IFabric, reverse flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

backwash efficiency is the time required to build up pressure from zero to a

small positive value . A comparison of the pressure increase per unit time from

the start of a test to the end of a test is an indication of back washing

efficiency . For tests evaluated hereafter, the rate of pressure change will be

calculated as the increase in pressure over the first 10 minutes of operation

after backwashing . Initial rate of increase for reverse-flow and cross flow

operation are not comparable, since actual filtration rate can be different .

For test 1, the initial rate of pressure change in the first 10 minutes

of operation was 0 .13 PSI/min . In the middle of the test (275-285 minutes

elapsed time), the rate of pressure change increased to 0 .30 PSI/min ., and at

the termination of the test, the rate of change was 0 .94 PSI/min . This

increasing trend in the rate of pressure change indicates incomplete backwash-

ing, and results in short filter runs and reduced filtered volumes . Test 2

was essentially a duplicate of test 1 and shows a similar increasing trend in

rates of pressure change .

Washed Tvve I_ Fabric To determine if the increasing trend in rate of

pressure increase was reversible, the fabrics used in test 2 were removed,

allowed to dry, then washed in an ordinary washing machine with a hot water

wash and a warm water rinse, using BIZ enzyme detergent . Figure 8 shows the

pressure versus time curve, which is analogous to Figure 4, except that only

two filtration cycles were made . The initial rate of pressure change was 0 .16

PSI/min and increased to 0 .26 PSI/min . for the second cycle, thus indicating

an almost complete restoration of permeability . It is not clear that the

washing alone restored permeability, because the drying process produced a

28

backwashing . Pressure drops were not allowed to increase above the 2 to 3 PSI

range, as compared to the previous phase were pressure drops as high as 15 PSI

were used .

Type I Fabric Figures 17 and 18 show the results of test 4 using detergent

plus AC road dirt wastewater . Turbidity was reduced from the influent value of

24 .5 NTU to 5 NTU, which was comparable to operation in the reverse flow mode .

The initial rate of pressure change was 0 .08 PSI/min ., and increased to 0 .28

for the third filter cycle . Figure 19 shows the total accumulated volume of

product water for the three cycles .

In the cross flow mode it is important to note that the accumulated

volume relation is not a linear function of time, as it is in reverse flow

operation; this results because there was no flow regulator on the exit end

of the fabric tubes to maintain a balance between flow through the filter and

recirculation flow . Also it was difficult to precisely control the filter

with cross flow operation which was also due to this .variable flow split . For

test 4 the total accumulated product volume was less than the water volume

required for backwash . Results for test 10, at the same conditions, except

with AC road dirt only wastewater, were similar to results from other tests,

in that fouling was less severe, and effluent turbidities were lower . Initial

rate of pressure change was 0 .02 PSI/min . and increased to 0 .09 PSI/min for

the second filter cycle .

40

Figure 15 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 11 . (Type IV Fabric, reverseflow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .

000m

0000m

`b .00 40 .00 80 .00 120 .00 160 .00

200.00

240.00TIME (MIN)

280 .00 320 .00 360 .00

Figure 14 Total Filtered Volume (gal/ft 2 ) versus Time for Test S .


400 .00

Figure 12 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test S . (Type IV Fabric,flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

reverse

t

fine layer of white powdery material on the fabric surface, which could be

removed by brushing or scraping .

Filtration of the AC road dirt only wastewater produced similar results

as the detergent containing wastewater, although clogging was less severe .

Figures 9-11 show turbidity, pressure drop and accumulated volume versus

time for test 9 . The turbidity was reduced from 15 NTU to an average of 2 NTU

after dynamic media formation . The initial pressure drop was 0 .05 PSI/min .

and increased to 0 .18 PSI/min . in the second cycle . Dynamic media formation

occurred very quickly . Effluent turbidity was lower because of the absence of

the detergent .

Type IV Fabric Reverse flow operation with the Type IV fabric was less suc-

cessful than with the Type I fabric, in that less efficient backwashing was

obtained . Figures 12-14 show the results of test 5 using the Type IV fabric,

reverse flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater . The initial rate of

pressure increase was only 0 .045 PSI/min ., but increased to 0 .52 PSI/min for

the sixth filter cycle . Backwashing only partially restored permeability .

Dynamic media formation-was a much more important mechanism as shown in Figure

12 . Initially effluent turbidity was 12 NIU, which was only a 50% reduction

from the influent turbidity of 24 .5 NTU. After approximately 40 minutes

elapsed, a sufficiently large layer of filtered material was depositied within

the fabric to increase filtration efficiency to rates comparable to the

results obtained with Type I fabric, producing an effluent turbidity of 4 NTII

minimum .

29

00

00

TIME (MIN)

Figure 8 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 3 . (washed Type IFabric, reverse flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

90 .00

100.00

1 ) 1

00N_

OOO.,.-4

OQ

OON

0

20 .00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

1110 .00

160 .00

180.00

200.00TIME (MIN)

Figure 9 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 9 . (Type I Fabric, reverseflow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .

00

00N_

OO

LOO0-4O(n .CLO

WconOin .-NoWcco_OC

OON

OO

O 0O

0U U

uJ

uJ

J

V

u

J

V

I

U

`0 .00

20.00

40.00

60 .00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140 .00

160.00

180 .00

200.00TIME (MIN)

Figure 10 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 9 . (Type I Fabric,reverse flow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .

Figure 11 Total Filtered Volume (gal/ft2 ) versus Time for Test 9 .

(Type IFabric, reverse flow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .

1

Figure 13 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test S .

(Type IVFabiric, reverse flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Type IV fabric with AC road dirt only wastewater shows analogous results

to the results obtained with Type I fabric . Figures 15 and 16 show turbidity

and pressure drop for test 11 . Initial rate of pressure increase was only

0 .03 PSI/min, but increased to 0 .20 for the second filter cycle, indicating

incomplete back washing . Effluent turbidities were again low due to the

absence of detergent .

Type V .Fabric Results with Type V fabric were disappointing in that very

little turbidity was removed . Turbidity was reduced from the influent value

of 24 .5 NTU to 22 NTU, which was only a 5 % reduction . Pressure increased to

only 1 .7 PSI, which was less than any other test without coagulated feed

water . This was a surprising result since 95% of the AC road dirt particles

were larger that the 5 micron membrane size . The only explanation for the low

turbidity removal and low pressure increase was leakage at the seams, which

also occurred with Types II and III fabrics in the previous phase . No visible

leakage could be observed at the seams . A color dye test might confirm this

hypothesis if future development of this fabric is needed .

Cross Flow Results

Cross flow results showed very little improvement over results obtained

in the previous phase . Longer run times were obtained in this phase than in

the previous phase, but were largely due to lower filtration rates . In this

phase all filtration rates were held as close as possible to 0 .5gal/ft2-min .

In the previous phase rates as high as 2 .Ogal/ft2-min were evaluated . Also

pressures were kept lower in this phase in the hopes that contaminant material

would not be forced deeply into the fabrics were it could not be removed by

37

)

OOy'-.-.

OO

OO

LOOI~OLO -

W

C O=0

(nCOW

CL

OO

OON

O

uu . uu

u

000

0

0000

OOO 00

`1 .00

50.00

100.00

150.00

u

u

00

00

00

0

200 .00

250.00

300.00

350.00TIME (MIN)

uu

1

J

u

u

u

400 .00

450.00

500.00

I u


(Type IVFabric, reverse flow, and AC road dirt wastewater) .

1 ) 1 1

C3O

N

OO

C3-

CDO

C)

N

u J

C)O

c.00

15 .00

30.00

45.00

60.00

75.00

90 .00

105.00

120 .00

135.00

150.00TIME (MIN)

Figure 17 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 4 . (Type I Fabric, crossflow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

O> OF-Cp -

D0 0

CO 0C EC :) 0

0=)O 0 0

O0

O0N-

OOO-

LDO

w~O=Oin .-(n (OwMQ--

C)C)

C)C)

N

U

J

V

Ua

X1 .00

15.00

U

JV

30 .00

45.00

60.00

75.00

90 .00

105 .00

120.00

135.00

150.00TIME (MIN)

Figure 18 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 4 . (Type I Fabric,reverse flow, detergent and AC road dirt wastewater) .

1

W

) 1

000un_m

000o-m

QWC CC)Qo0

UNQLLm o:0o(noO-

LL-N0F-oILo0

U)

JoCE:,;LDo-

0j

'1 .00

15.00

30.00

45 .00

60 00

75.00

90.00

105 .00

120.00

135 .00

150.00TIME (MIN)


(Type IFabric, cross flow, and detergent and AC road dirt wastewater) .

Tyne f Fabric Figures 20 and 21 show the results of test 7 with Type IV

fabric and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater . Initial rate of pressure

increase was 0 .02 PSI/min . and increased to 0 .27 PSI/min . for the second

filter cycle . Total accumulated volume for the two filter cycles was 75

gal/ft2 . Backwashing did not restore fabric permeability .

Coagulation/Flocculation Re n sJar Tests

A large number of coagulation and flocculation tests were performed in order

to develop a method of breaking the stability of the detergent . A method was

reported previously by Deane (2) to remove synthetic detergents by first

reacting the detergent with a water-insoluble, high molecular weight, anionic

surface active oil, which produces an emulsion which can be broken by conven-

tional metallic coagulants . Straight forward coagulation

fate (alum) was also attempted .

Figure 22 shows the results of a series of jar tests with varying

dosages of alum expressed as A1+3 . Expressing alum dosages in aluminum concen-

tration eliminates confusion since no weight of hydration is included . It

should be noted that 1 .0 mg/1 of Al+3 is equivalent to 12 .7 mg/l of Al2(So

4 ) 3 1

and 22 mg/l of A12(S04)3 x 14 H2O . (Reagent grad alum is purchased as 16

hydrate, but commercially available alum averages about 10% less than the

theoretical value, or about 14 hydrate .)

Several distinct and repeatable trends were noted throughout the jar

testing . The turbidity always increased after the initial alum addition, and

this was most probably due to the reactions of alum with the phosphates

present in the detergent .

An exact analysis for the detergent used in the

44

with aluminum sul-

) )

Figure 20 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 7 . (Type IV Fabric,flow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

1

cross

)

0

`0 .00

25 .00

50.00

75.00

100.00

125 .00

150 .00

175.00

200 .00

225 .00

250 .00TIME (MIN)


(Type IVFabric, reverse flow, detergent and AC road dirt wastewater) .

h-ZvO

HDHMOMO

m

0

000

00

00

0

0

'0 .00

10.00 20 .00

0

30 .00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00ALUM DOSAGE (MG/L AS RL3)

Figure 22 Turbidity versus Coagulant Dose . (Alum coagulant without pH con-trol) .

phase was not available, but specifications for Type I military detergent,

shown previously in Table 3, require-that total phosphate content (as P), be

between 7 .6 and 8 .7% by weight . Orthophosphate content must be less than 2%

(as P205 )

After additional alum was added to the detergent containing wastewaters,

the aluminum phosphate crystals and AC road dirt particles were effectively

coagulated and formed a fine floc which settled within the 30 minute settling

period . The resulting decline in turbidity was approximately 50%. Surface

tension did not decline, indicating that very little detergent was removed .

Sodium sulfonate was added as a emulsion breaker to aid in coagulation

as described in the procedure outlined by Deans (2) . The results of a pH con-

trolled jar test using the emulsion breaker and alum are shown in Figure 23 .

In this test pH was controlled at 6 .5 and emulsion breaker dosage was varied

from 0 .0 to 20 .0 mg/l . Alum dosage was held constant at 50 mg/1 (as A13) .

Figure 24 shows these results of a third set of jar tests . This set of tests

differs from the previous set in that 10 mg/l of sodium sulfonate was added to

each beaker and the alum dosage was varied .

Addition of the emulsion breaker lowered the resulting product turbidity

due to increased detergent removal . Turbidity removal was approximately 85%

for the optimum dose of alum and sodium sulfonate . It is interesting to note

that the range of beneficial coagulant aid dosage was quite narrow, and higher

or lower dosages resulted in final turbidity higher than that which would have

been obtained without the aid .

48

C30

N

OLn

00

aO91 .00

2'.50 51.00 7 '.50

10.00

(2.50

1 .00

17.50SODIUM SOLFONATE DOSAGE (MG/L)

20 .00

22.50

25 .00

Figure 23 Turbidity TIrsus Sodium Sulfonate Dose . (Varying sodium sulfonatewith 50 mg/l Al ) .

00

00'b . 00 10 .00 20 .00

0

1)

O

30,00

40.00

5b .00

60.00

70 .00

B0.00

90 .00

100.00ALUM DOSAGE (MG/L AS AL3)

Figure 24 Turbidity versus Coagulant Dose . (Varying Alum dosage with 10 ±g/lsodium sulfonate) .

Coagulation/Filtration Results,

Two filtration tests were performed to determine the effectiveness of

fabric filtration after coagulation with alum and sodium sulfonate To obtain

sufficient quantities of wastewater, the entire influent tank (375 liters) was

filled with tap water . Detergent and AC road dirt were added to the tank and

the contents were throughly mixed . After mixing alum and sodium sulfonate

were added and the tank was remixed for one minute . Mixing speed was then

reduced and the tank was flocculated for the next 20 minutes . A fluffy white

floc formed which settled and resulted in the formation of an 8 inch sludge

blanket . For test 12 the pH of the mixture was not controlled, and the final

pH was 4 .0 .

In should be noted that the results of the tank coagulation/flocculation

procedure was not nearly as good as the results obtained with the jar tests .

This resulted primarily because the mixing in the tank could not be maintained

as uniform as that obtained in the jar tests . The turbidities obtained in the

tank tests were routinely in the 4 to 6 NTII range, which was much higher that

the 1 to 1 .5 NTII obtained in the best jar tests .

Figure 25 shows turbidity versus time and pressure versus time for

reverse flow operation with Type I fabric . Turbidity was reduced from the

influent value of 24 .5 NTU to 6 NTII after coagulation and sedimentation to

less than 2 .0 NTII after filtration . As can be seen from the pressure drop

data in Figure 26, the first filter cycle lasted over 650 minutes, which was

longer than 17 filter cycles without coagulation (as compared to test 1) . The

initial rate of pressure increase was 0 .05 PSI/min ., but declined to a stable

value of approximately 0 .008 PSI/min . after about 40 minutes of filtration .

51

The reason for the high initial rate is unknown, but may be due to air blind-

ing . The scatter in turbidity values shown in Figure 25 occurred as a result

of starting and stopping filtration to prepare and coagulate more feed waste-

water .

Effluent turbidities were consistently lower than those obtained in

other filtration tests, and occurred as a direct result of coagulation .

Influent turbidity for the non-coagulated influent ranged from 23 to 26 NrU

for tests 1 through 11, in contrast to 4 to 6 for tests 12 and 13 . Other fil-

tration tests produced effluents with turbidities less than 2 NrU and occa-

sionally less that 1 .0 NrU, but comparing the average effluent turbidities

over all filter cycles for each test, no other test produced an effluent

better than test 12 . Cross flow tests operated at low system pressure also

produced low turbidities, but this was a primarily a manifestation of the

lower pressure than the filtration mechanism . If the system pressure for test

12 had been lower, turbidities would have also been lower . This results from

the imperfections in the Type I fabric, which expand at higher pressure and

allow the influent to leak into the effluent .

An unique phenomena occurred in test 12 ; alum floc coated the surface

of the fabric and formed a cake which was approximately 1/16 inch thick . The

filter cake was only partially removed by the normal backwashing procedure .

Figure 27 is a photograph of the filter tubes at the end of the first backwash

cycle . The filtered material can be seen in broken cakes on the fabric sur-

face . Further back washing was attempted using air with flow rates as high as

4 .6 SCFM/ft 2 . A combination of pulsing air and backwash water, shown in Fig-

ure 28, loosened most of the filter cake, but particles remained loosely

52

) 1 1

Figure 25 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 12 . (Type I Fabric, reverseflow, and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

OO

OON_

OO

O

LOO

(n

WCC o=o(n ._u)(0WCc

OO

444

V

7

Lb .00

5b.00

60.00TIME (MIN)

HIO'

000

70 .00

80 .00

90.00

100.00

fFigure 26 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 12 . (Type I

Fabric, reverse flow, and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt waste-water) .

1 1 1 1

Figure 27 Filter Cake adhering to Filter Fabric . (Filter Test 12, reverseflow, Type I Fabric, and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewa-ter) .

I

attached to the filter surface, as if they were being held by small fibers . A

large number of cake particles could be seen vibrating relative to the fabric

surface during the air backwash, but could not be removed .

After backwashing the rate of pressure change was 0 .02 PSI/min., which

was slightly higher that the original rate of change . The contribution of the

unremoved cake particles to increased pressure build-up was unknown, since

they appeared to be loosely attached to the filter surface . It was

hypothesized that liquid could flow around the particles, and that the cake

particles contribution to pressure build-up was low . Further developments in

backwashing would be required to provide more mechanical vibration and shock

to the fabric in order to loosen the filter cake .

Figures 29 and 30 show the results of test 13, which was virtually the

same as test 12, except that the pH was controlled to 6 .5 . The turbidity and

pressure drop versus time relations were very similar to results obtained in

test 12, except that the first cycle was approximately 10% longer . Rates of

pressure increase were similar . One important difference not noted on the

figures was the difference in filter cake . No filter cake formed in test 13

as in test 12, and no air backwash was required . Apparently the different dis-

tribution of aluminum hydroxides formed at the higher pH had different struc-

tural properties . This might be explained from a theoretical basis since the

distribution of types of aluminum hydroxides at pH 4 .0 is different that at pH

6 .5 .

The implications of this difference have not been explored and may be

significant . It may be desirable to provide a thick cake on the external sur-

face of the fabric in order to prevent penetration of the fabric with

56

i

Figure 28 Air/Water Back Wash . (Filter Test 12, reverse flow, Type I Fabric,and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

O0

N_

OO

O>__C3

H- .

O

mCC oDo

O0

N

5

O

0

p, O

O

0, O

O`Ogo

0

O"`^CY 0V'

0

0

•

o 0

0O

O0

91 .00

10 .00

20 .00

30.00

O

0

0

O

O

CD

40 .00

50.00

60.00TIME (MIN)

x10'

O

O

O

70 .00

O

O

OO

O

O

•

O

O

O

0

(7ammm

60 .00

90.00 100 .00

Figure 29 Turbidity versus Time for Filter Test 13 . (Type I Fabric, reverseflow, pH control, and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewa-ter) .

00

00N_

0OO_

80 .00

90.00

Figure 30 Pressure Drop (PSI) versus Time for Filter Test 13 . (Type IFabric, reverse flow, pH control, and coagulated detergent plus AC roaddirt wastewater) .

O .OOO

100 .00

contaminants . Using the cake build up would be very similar to using a precoat

for the filter .

Fouling Factor Results

Fouling factor test results are shown in Table 5 for representative

filter tests . The results show conclusively that all modes of filtration for

both wastewaters significantly decreased the wastewaters' tendency to foul the

Whatman GF/C filters . For unfiltered detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater

the mean time required to filter 1000 ml was 432 seconds (for all tests shown

in Table 5) . After filtration the required time declined to 25 seconds . For

unfiltered AC road dirt only wastewater it required 23 seconds to filter 1000

ml and only 10 seconds for filtered wastewater . It is clear that fabric fil-

tration significantly reduced the fouling tendency of both wastewaters used in

this phase .

Column five in Table 5 shows the final volume of filtered wastewater in

the fouling factor tests and the time required to obtain this volume . For the

detergent containing wastewater the final values represent near complete

blinding of the glass fiber filter, and very little increase in filtered

volume could have been obtained by allowing additional filtration time . For

the AC road dirt wastewater, especially filtered wastewater, greater volumes

of water could have been filtered over longer time . Therefore one should

conclude that the fouling tendencies of the two wastewater are quite dif-

ferent, and even more different that Table 5 indicates .

60

It is difficult to compare the results of the various fouling factor

tests . Generally a maximum value of filtered volume is asymptotically

approached, if sufficient volume liquid is filtered. For the unfiltered

detergent/road dirt wastewater this value was approximately 1200 ml, which was

obtained in tests 2, 4, and 5 after an average time of 2,150 seconds, ranging

from a low of 1,973 to a high of 2,314 . For effluents from tests 2 and 4 the

asymptotic values were approximately 5,500 ml, obtained after 2,160 seconds,

indicating very little difference in filtration efficiency between cross flow

and reverse flow . For test 5 the asymptotic value was approximately 6,300 ml,

obtained after 2,210 seconds . The 14 % increase in final volume was tentative

evidence for better filtration using the Type IV fabric .

For road dirt only wastewater the asymptotic maximum volume for the

influent was approximately 2,250 ml obtained after 550 seconds . Asymptotic

final volumes were not obtained for effluent samples, even after filtering as

much as 17 liters .

In summarizing Table 5 and other fouling tests, one concludes that very

little difference in product water quality exists between filtration modes and

fabric types . According to the fouling test results, Type IV fabric filtered

as well as or perhaps slightly better than Type I fabric, and the efficiency

obtained in the reverse flow method was no different that the cross flow

method .

61

TABLE 5 FOULING FACTOR TESTS RESULTS

TIME (seconds) REQUIRED TO FILTER SPECIFIED VOLUME(ml)

+Results for each fouling factor test tabulated in order performed duringthe filter test .

62

FilterTest No .+

(1)

I 500 mlI

(2)1000 ml

I

(3)2000 mlI

(4)

Final Volume inI

ml / TimeI

(5)

2 Influent 18 . 451 . 1200 ./2289 .2 Influent 17 . 423 . 1200 ./2015 .2 Effluent 14 . 28 . 65 . 5500 ./2235 .2 Effluent 12 . 25 . 60 . 5500 ./2045 .

4 Influent 16 . 435 . 1200 ./2019 .4 Influent 17 . 415 . 1200 ./1973 .4 Effluent 15 . 29 . 68 . 5480 ./2384 .4 Effluent 16 . 34 . 73 . 5480 ./1984 .

5 Influent 17 . 428 . 1200 ./2125 .5 Influent 18 . 442 . 1200 ./2290 .5 Influent 19 . 434 . 1200 ./2314 .5 Effluent 14 . 28 . 62 . 6300 ./2181 .5 Effluent 14 . 28 . 65 . 6300 ./2350 .5 Effluent 14 . 32 . 71 . 6200 ./2113 .

9 Influent 9 . 24 . 173 . 2250 ./568 .9 Influent 8 .5 21 . 160 . 2250 ./540 .9 Influent 8 .5 22 . 151 . 2250 ./506 .9 Effluent 6 . 12 .5 25 .5 17,000/264 .9 Effluent 5 .0 10 . 23 .0 14,000/199 .9 Effluent 5 .0 10 . 21 .0 15,000/253 .

11 Influent 8 .5 23 . 165 . 2250 ./569 .11 Influent 8 .5 23 . 168 . 2250 ./593 .11 Effluent 6 .0 12 . 24 .5 15,000/213 .11 Effluent 6 .0 12 . 25 . 16,000/236 .

CONCLUSIONS AND RECODMNDATIONS

Three fabric types with two modes of operation were evaluated to deter-

mine their potential for development into a light weight portable filter . Ten-

tative evidence from one fouling factor test indicated slightly better fil-

tration by Type IV fabric as compared to Type I fabric . Type V fabric was not

effective, which probably resulted from seam leakage rather than poor sieve

action by the fabric . Type I fabric backwashed more effectively than Type IV

fabric, and did not require contaminant build-up for efficient filtration .

The cross flow technique in the internally pressurized mode of operation

did not appear to be a promising technique for this type of wastewater, since

no surface filtration layer which can be hydrodynamically controlled occurs .

The reverse flow technique, which expands the filter fabric on backwashing,

appears to be a much more promising technique . Both filtration methods

reduced the laundry shower/road dirt wastewater turbidity from 24-26 NIU to 3

to 5 NIU, and for the road dirt only wastewater, turbidity was reduced from

14-16 NrU to 1 to 3 NIU . For coagulated/settled wastewater effluent, turbidi-

ties were reduced from the influent value of 24-26 NrU to 4-6 NrU after sedi-

mentation and to 1-2 NrU after filtration .

Backwashing continued to be a problem . Initial rates of pressure

increase for the Type I fabric with detergent/AC road dirt wastewater averaged

approximately 0 .13 PSI/min for virgin fabric, increased to 0 .22 PSI/min for

the second filtration cycle, and increased to as high as 0 .94 PSI/min after 17

backwashes (test 1) . For the AC road dirt only wastewater the initial rate of

pressure increase for virgin fabric was 0 .05 PSI/min and increased to 0 .20

PSI/min on the second cycle . Backwashing was not effective in restoring fabric

63

pressure drop to the original value, and after backwashing pressure drop gra-

dually increased to unacceptably high levels .

Further development is required to determine additional methods to

reduce contaminant build-up on the filter fabric

64

during reverse flow opera-

tion . Additional methods which may be promising are air/liquid backwashing,

backwashing at higher rates, ultrasonics to remove contaminants, and chemical

cleaning while backwashing .

Pretreatment of feed wastewater with coagulating chemicals appears

promising . This phase showed that pretreatment with high concentrations of

alum vastly expanded the filter's usefulness . The optimal alum dose was 50

mg/l as Al+3 , which would require 9 .4 lb/1000 gal of wastewater treated, or 94

lb/day for a 10,000 gal/day plant . This was calculated assuming commercially

available alum would be used, which is 36 .4 Baume and contains 4 .4 % Al (8 .3 %

as A1203 ) . If pH control were required caustic soda requirements would be 3 .7

lb/1000gal or 37 lb/day for a 10,000 gal/day plant . Additional work is

required with organic coagulants designed to replace primary metallic coagu-

lants . A combination of organic coagulant and emulsion-breaking chemical such

as sodium sulfonate could reduce chemical requirements to acceptable levels .

The technique described by Deane (2) did function as indicated, and should be

further investigated .

The following areas are recommended for future development :

1 . A variety of types of emulsion-breaking chemicals should be evaluated in

conjunction with conventional organic water treatment polymers . The

objective of this work is to find an emulsion breaking/coagulating poly-

mar combination which would provide the same degree of treatment as the

alum/sodium sulfonate combination provided in tests 12 and 13, but at

much lower dosage . A goal of this work would be to reduce total chemi-

cal requirements to 0 .47 lb/1000 gal or 20 lb/day for a 30 GPM treatment

plant .

2 . Extended tests should be performed with Type I fabric in order to evalu-

ate its ability to withstand repeated washing and backwashing . An

automated filter apparatus would be required which would allow continu-

ous operation without direct operator interaction . Filter fabrics with

several hundred hours operation should be evaluated microscopically to

determine wear and ultimate fabric life .

3 . Continued development with the reverse flow method is necessary to elim-

inate the contaminants which gradually build up on the fabric surface

and increase pressure drop . Possible mechanisms to improve backwashing

efficiency are :

a .

Intermittent backwashing with caustic or other chemical which

could dissolve the contaminants on the fabric surface .

b .

Intermittent "super" backwashing at backwash rates perhaps five

times greater than normal backwashing .

c .

Air insertion in conjunction with standard backwashing .

4 . All testing performed to date has been with the AC road dirt . No test-

ing has been performed with other types of particulate contaminants,

such as bentonite, which have a different size distribution . The very

65

fine size distribution of the road dirt (5 % less than 5 microns) may be

causing a portion of the backwashing problems .

5 . If no acceptable chemical pretreatment can be developed, alternate

detergents should be evaluated which are amenable to chemical pretreat-

ment .

66

RFPRRFNCES

1 . Stenstrom, M. K ., Vazirinejad, H . R ., Sadeghipour, J ., Development of aTubular Fabric Filter Concept-Phase I, UCLA Engineering Report No .UCLA-ENG-81-41, December, 1981 .

2 . Deane, T . N ., U .S . Patent No . 4,092,242, May 30, 1978 .

67

APPENDIX

68

List of Avvendia Figures

Figure A1 Turbidity versus Time for Test 1 .

Figure A2 Pressure versus Time for Test 1 .

Figure A3 Filtered Volume versus Time for Test 1 .








Figure All Pressure versus Time for Test 4 .





Figure A16 Turbidity versus Time for Test 6.

Figure A17 Pressure versus Time for Test 6.

69

Figure A18 Filtered Volume versus Time for Test 6.


















70





Figure A40 Flux Decline for Test 2 (first fouling test)

Figure A41 Flux Decline for Test 2 (second fouling test)





Figure A46 Flux Decline for Test 5 (third fouling test)






71

List of Avvendia Tables

Table Al Summary of Results for Test 1 (Type I Fabric, reverse flow,detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Table A2 Summary of Results for Test 2 (Type I Fabric, reverse flow,

Table A9 Summary of Results for Test 9 (Type IAC road dirt only wastewater) .

Table A10 Summary of Results for Test 10AC road dirt only wastewater) .

Table A12 Summary of Results for Test 12 (Type Iand coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Table A14 Volume versus Time for Influent infor test) .

Table A15 Volume versus Time for Effluent infor test) .

and

and

Fabric, reverse flow, and

(Type I Fabric, cross flow, and

Table All Summary of Results for Test 11 (Type IV Fabric, reverse flow,and AC road dirt only wastewater) .

Fabric, reverse flow,

Table A13 Summary of Results for Test 13 (Type I Fabric, reverse flow,and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater with pH con-trol) .

Test 2 (first fouling fac-

Test 2 (first fouling fac-

Table A16 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 2 (second fouling fac-tor test) .

7 2

detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Table A3 Summary of Results for Test 3 (washed Type I Fabric, reverseflow, and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Table A4 Summary of Results for Test 4 (Type I Fabric, cross flow, and


Table A5 Summary of Results for Test 5 (Type IV Fabric, reverse flow,and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Table A6 Summary of Results for Test 6 (Type IV Fabric, reverse flow,and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Table A7 Summary of Results for Test 7 (Type IV Fabric, cross flow, anddetergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Table A8 Summary of Results for Test 8 (membrane fabric, reverse flow,and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

Table A17 Volume versus Time for Effluent in Test 2

for test) .

Table A18 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 4

for test) .

Table A19 Volume versus Time for Effluent in Test 4

for test) .

Table A20 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 4for test) .

Table A21 Volume versus Time for Effluent in Test 4for test) .



Table A24 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 5

for test) .










73

(second fouling fac-

(first fouling fac-

(first fouling fac-



(first fouling fac-

(first fouling fac-



(third fouling fac-

(third fouling fac-

(first fouling fac-

(first fouling fac-



(third fouling fac-

(third fouling fac-

Table A34 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 11 (first fouling

factor test) .

Table A35 Volume versus Time for Effluent in Test 11 (first fouling fac-tor test) .

Table A36 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 11 (second foulingfactor test) .

Table A37 Volume versus Time for Effluent in Test 11 (second foulingfactor test) .

74

Table Al Summary of Results for Test 1 Cont . (Type I Fabric, reverse flow, anddetergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

75 SOKI

OBS TINE PRESSURE IUR• VCL1 E

1 0 1 .0 8 .1 2.52 5 1 .8 6.7 5 . r3 10 2 .3 5.4 7.54 15 2 .9 5. 1 10 .05 20 3 .6 5 .1 12.56 25 4 .4 5.2 15 .07 30 5 .3 5.2 17 .58 35 6 .3 5.3 20 .09 40 7 .6 5 .8 22 .5

10 45 8 .8 6.5 25.011 50 1 .0 5.2 25.012 55 2 .1 4.9 27 .513 60 2 .8 4 .7 30 .014 65 3 .5 4.7 32 .515 70 4 .6 4.8 35 .016 75 5 .6 4.7 37 .517 80 6 .5 448 40 .118 85 7 .6 4.9 42 .519 90 8 .8 5.2 45 .020 95 1 .0 5.6 45 .021 100 2 .5 4.8 47.522 105 3 .1 4.7 50 .023 110 4 .2 4 .5 52.524 115 5 .3 4.5 55 .025 120 6 .4 4 .4 57 .526 125 7 .3 4.5 60.027 130 8 .3 4 .8 62 .528 135 9 .2 5 .4 65 .029 140 1 .0 5.3 65 .0.30 145 2 .8 4.7 67 .531 150 3 .5 4 .7 70 .032 155 4 .6 4.7 72 .533 160 5 .4 4.8 75 .34 165 6 ..7 4.7 77 .535 170 7 .5 4.7 83 .036 175 8 .8 5.2 82 .537 180 9 .6 6.3 85 .038 185 1 .0 6 .0 85 .039 190 3 .0 4 .5 87 .540 195 3 .6 4.6 90 .041 200 4 .8 4.8 92.542 205 5 .5 4.9 95 .043 210 6 .9 5.1 97 .544 215 7 .8 5.9 100 .045 220 9 .0 6.2 102 .546 225 9 .9 6.8 105 .047 230 1 .0 6.1 105 .048 235 3 .3 4.7 107 .549 240 3 .8 4.8 110 .050 245 5 .2 4.7 112 .551 250 5 .8 4 .6 115 .052 255 7 .2 4.7 117 .553 260 8 .3 5.3 120 .054 265 9 .4 6.8 122 .555 270 10 .4 7.3 125.0

Table Al Susasary of Results for Test 1 Cont . (Type I Fabric, reverse flow, anddetergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

OBS I'IME PRESSURE URE VOLUME

55 275 1 .0 6 .3 125 .057 280 3 .7 4.8 127 .558 285 4 .0 4 .8 130 .059 290 5 .5 4.8 132.560 295 6 .2 5.1 135 .061 300 7 .5 5.2 137.562 305 8 .5 5.8 143 .163 310 9 .6 6.9 142. 55564 315 10 .8 7.5 145.065 320 1 .0 5.4 147 .566 325 3 .8 4.7 150 .067 330 4 .2 5.1 152 .568 335 5 .8 5.2 155.169 340 6 .5 4.9 157 .570 345 7 .8 5.4 160.071 350 8 .9 6.3 162 .572 355 9 .8 6 .9 165.073 360 11 .0 7 .8 167 .574 365 1 .0 5.9 167 .575 370 4 .0 5.1 170 .076 375 5 .1 5 .6 172 .577 380 6 .3 5.8 175 .078 385 7 .6 6.6 177 .579 390 8.9 6 .8 180 .080 395 10 .1 6 .9 182 .581 400 11 .2 7.0 185 .82 405 1 .8 4 .5 185 .383 410 4 .0 5.1 187.584 415 6 .0 5.2 190 .085 420 7 .8 5.7 192.586 425 9 .5 6 .3 195 .187 430 11 .2 6.5 197.588 435 1 .3 4.6 197 .589 440 4 .1 4.5 200.C90 445 7 .1 4 .8 202.591 450 9 .4 5.8 205 .092 455 11 .4 6.5 207 .593 460 1 .0 4.8 207 .594 465 4 .6 4.4 210 .095 470 7 .8 5.2 212.596 475 10 .1 6 .2 215.097 480 11 .9 8.5 217.598 485 1 .5 3.5 217 .599 490 5 .5 3.8 220.0

100 495 8 .2 3.9 222.5101 500 11 .2 4 .1 225.C102 505 0 .2 3.9 225 .0103 510 5 .4 3.3 227 .5104 515 8 .5 4 .3 230.0105 520 11 .3 6.2 232 .5106 525 0 .5 3.8 232.5107 530 6 .1 3.3 235.0108 535 9 .3 7 .2 237 .5-109 535 11 .8 9.6 240 .C110 540 0 .2 3.2 240 .0

76

Table Al Summary of Results for Test 1 (Type I Fabric, reverse flow,and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

77

OBS TTmr PRESSURE TTJRB VOLUME

ill 545 4 .4 4.3 242 . 55112 550 7 .6 4.2 245 .0113 555 10 .1 7.8 247 .5114 560 12 .8 8.2 250 .C115 565 3 .0 3 .6 250 .3116 570 9 .6 2.7 252 .5117 575 12 .9 6 .3 255 .7118 580 0 .2 2.7 255.C119 585 6 .2 2.5 257 .5120 590 9 .6 6.2 260.C121 595 12 .8 8.2 262 .5

Table A2 Summary of Results for Test 2 Cont . (Type I Fabric, reverse flow, anddetergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

78

OPS TINE PRESSURE TURF VOLUMF

1 0 0.0 9 .2 0 .02 5 1 .1 7.2 2 .53 10 2 .0 5 .7 5.34 15 2 .5 5.3 7 .55 20 3 .1 5.3 10 .06 25 3 .8 5.3 12.57 30 4 .7 5.5 15.08 35 5 .8 5.7 17 . 59 40 0 .0 6.3 17.5

10 45 1 .5 5.2 20.011 50 2 .4 4 .3 22.512 55 2 .9 4.3 25 .013 60 3.6 4.2 27.514 65 4 .3 4.6 30 .015 70 5 .9 4.9 32.516 75 0.0 6.5 32 .517 80 1 .9 5.1 35 .018 85 2 .9 4.1 37 .519 90 3 .5 4.0 40 .020 95 4 .2 4.1 42 .521 100 5 .8 4.3 45.022 105 7 .5 4.7 47 .523 110 0 .0 6.3 47 .524 115 2 .5 4.9 50 .025 120 3.1 4 .0 52.526 125 4 .2 4.1 55 .027 130 5 .3 4.1 57.528 135 6 .5 4.5 60 .029 140 7.8 5.2 62 .530 145 0 .0 6.8 62 .531 150 2 .8 4.7 65 .032 155 3 .5 4.2 67 .533 160 4 .7 4.3 70 .034 165 5 .8 4.3 72 .535 170 7 .1 4 .6 75 .036 175 8 .5 6.0 77 .537 180 0 .0 6.5 77.538 185 3 .1 4.5 80 .039 190 4 .2 4.1 82 . 5-540 195 5 .3 4 .1 85 .041 200 6 .5 4.2 87 .542 205 7 .6 4.5 90 .043 210 8 .9 7 .0 92.544 215 0 .0 7.1 92 .545 220 3.5 4 .6 95 .046 225 4 .3 4.2 97 .547 230 5 .5 4 .2 103 .348 235 6 .8 4.0 102 .549 240 7 .9 4.9 105 .050 245 9 .2 6.3 107 .551 250 0 .0 6.1 107 .552 255 3 .7 4.2 110 .053 260 4 .5 4.0 112.554 265 5 .7 4.0 115 . .^55 270 7 .2 4.1 117 .5

Table A2 Su wary of Results for Test 2 Cont . (Type I Fabric, reverse flow, anddetergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

79

OIIS TIME PRESSURE 'BURP V0LUME

56 275 8 .3 4 .3 123.357 280 9 .9 5.2 122.558 285 0 .0 6.3 122.559 290 4 .0 4.3 125 .060 295 5 .1 4.4 127 .56 1 300 6 .2 4.4 130.C62 305 7 .8 4 .5 132.563 310 8 .9 4.7 135 .064 315 10 .7 5.3 137.565 320 0 .0 5.2 137.566 325 4 .0 4.3 140.367 330 5 .8 4.1 142.568 335 6 .4 4.1 145.069 340 7 .9 4.7 147.570 345 9 .5 6.1 150 .071 350 0 .0 5.9 150.072 355 4 .1 5.2 152.573 360 6 .2 4.1 155.074 365 6 .9 4.2 157 .575 370 8 .2 4.1 160 .C76 375 10 .4 5 .4 162.577 380 0 .0 6.5 162 .578 385 4 .1 5.1 165 .079 390 6.4 4.8 167.580 395 7 .3 4 .8 170 .081 400 9 .4 5.3 172.582 405 0 .4 5.1 172 .583 410 4.2 4 .2 175 .084 415 6 .9 4.2 177.585 420 7.9 4 .5 180 .086 425 10 .1 5 .0 182 .587 430 0 .0 5.0 182 .588 435 4 .3 4.8 185.089 440 7 .1 4.3 187 .590 445 8 .5 4 .3 190 .091 450 11 .2 5.9 192 .592 455 0 .0 5 .8 192.593 460 4 .4 4.2 195 .094 465 7 .5 4 .3 197 .595 470 9 .5 5.5 200 .096 475 0 .0 6 .9 200.397 480 4 .4 3 .9 202 .598 485 8 .1 4 .1 205 .099 490 10 .1 5.2 207 .5

80

,,; '_; r<

Table A3 Summary of Results for Test 3 (washed Type I Fabric, reverse flow,

VOLUME

and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

03S TIME PRESSURE TUBE

1 0 0 .0 8 .4 0 .02 5 1 .2 6 .9 2 .53 10 1 .6 5 .8 5 .04 15 2 .3 5. 5 7.55 20 2 .9 5 .5 10.06 25 3 .8 5.4 12.57 30 4 .8 5 .3 15.08 35 5 .9 5 .3 17 .59 40 7 .0 5 .3 20 .0

10 45 8 .9 6.8 22 .511 50 10 .5 9 .7 25.012 60 1 .0 9 .5 25 .013 65 2 .5 4 ..3 27.514 70 3 .6 4 .5 30 .C15 75 5 .7 4 .6 32.516 90 8 .1 9 .2 35.017 85 10 .4 11 .5 37.5

Table A4 Summary of Results for Test 4 (Typegent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

81

I Fabric, cross flow, and deter-

OBS TIME PRESSURE TUBE VOLU'!E

1 0 3 .0 2 .4 3 .00002 5 0 .5 3.4 3.53933 10 0 . 8 4 .6 5 .68214 15 1 .5 4.8 9.51435 20 2.7 4 .6 11 .61076 25 3 .5 4.3 13.43577 30 4 .0 4.3 14.88938 35 4 .7 4 .8 16 .02149 40 5.2 5 .0 17 .0893

10 45 5.7 5.2 18 .1CCO11 50 6 .2 5 .2 19 .314312 55 6 .4 5.1 19 .885713 60 6 .5 5 .1 20 .629614 65 6 .6 5.2 21 .251015 70 6 .6 5.1 21 .767916 75 6 .6 5.0 22 .246417 80 0 .0 7.0 22.246418 85 1 .8 6.2 24 .267919 90 2.1 5 .5 25.68212-1 95 2 .4 5.4 26 .517921 100 2.7 5.3 27 .107122 105 3.1 5.3 27 .578623 110 3 .2 5.3 28 .307124 115 3 .4 5.2 28 .403625 120 3 .4 5.2 28.803626 125 0 .0 8.0 28 .803627 130 1 .9 5 .8 30.185728 135 2.8 5.4 30 .9E2129 140 3 .1 5.3 31 .417930 145 3 .1 5.3 31 .75CC

82

Table AS Summary of Results for Test 5 (Type IV Fabric, reverse flow, and

VOLUME


0BS TIME PRESSURE T114E

1 0 0 .0 10.5 2 .52 5 0 .0 8 .2 5 .13 10 0 .5 6.4 7,54 15 0 .8 6 . 1 10.05 20 1 .0 5 .3 12 .56 25 1 .2 5.1 15.07 30 1 .3 4. 8 17 .58 35 1 .4 4.7 20 .09 40 1 .5 4 .9 22 .5

10 45 1 .5 4 .E 25.011 50 1 .6 4.7 27 .512 55 1 .7 4 .6 30 .013 60 1 .8 4.2 32 .514 65 1 .9 4 .2 35.015 70 2 .0 4.2 37 .516 75 2 .1 a . 2 40.017 80 2 .2 4.2 42 .518 85 2 .3 4 .4 45.019 90 2 .5 4.2 47.520 95 2 .6 4 .1 50 .021 100 2 .9 3 .9 52 .522 105 3 .1 3 .8 55 .023 110 3 .2 3 .9 57 .524 115 3 .5 3 .9 63.25 120 3 .9 3.8 62 .526 125 4 .4 4 .2 65 .027 130 4 .8 4.4 67 .528 135 5 .3 4 .5 70 .029 140 5 .8 4.4 72 .530 145 6 .3 4 .6 75 .031 150 6 .8 4.8 77.532 155 7 .5 5.3 80 .033 160 8 .1 5.6 82 .534 165 0 .0 8 .5 82 .535 170 0 .5 6. 4 85 . 036 175 0 .9 4 .2 87 .537 180 1 .2 4.0 90.038 185 1 .5 3 .6 92.539 190 1 .8 3 .3 95 .040 195 2 .2 3 .3 97 .541 200 2 .6 3. 3 100 .042 205 3 .1 3 .3 102 .543 210 3 .5 3.3 105 .044 215 4 .0 3 .4 107 .545 220 4 .4 3 .3 110.046 225 4 .9 3 .4 112 .547 230 5 .4 3.5 115 .048 235 6 .1 3 .8 117 .549 240 6 .6 3.8 120 .050 245 7 .1 4 .2 122 .551 250 7 .7 4.6 125.052 255 8 .4 4 .9 127 .553 260 9 .2 5 . 2 130 .054 265 10 .1 5 .6 132 .555 270 0 .0 6.5 132 .5

Table AS Summary of Results for Test 5 Cont .(Type IV Fabric, reverse flow, anddetergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

83

CBS TIME PRESSURE TUEE - VOLUME

56 275 1 .6 4. 1 135.057 280 1 .9 3 .2 137 .558 285 2 .1 3 . 1 140.059 290 2 .9 3 .3 142.560 295 3 .8 3 .8 145. C61 300 5 .0 4 .2 147.562 305 6 .3 4 .6 15 0. 063 310 7 .6 5 .2 152 .564 315 8 .9 5.7 155 .065 320 10 .1 5 .8 157 .566 325 0 .0 4.1 157 .567 330 2 .5 2 .9 160 .068 335 3 .9 3 .8 162 .569 340 6 .4 4 .2 165.070 345 8 .7 3 .7 167 .571 350 10 .8 5 .2 170 .072 355 0 .0 4.4 170 .073 360 3 .9 5 .4 172 . 574 365 6 .6 3.4 175 .075 370 8 .7 3 .4 177 .576 375 10 .5 3.4 180 .077 380 0 .0 11 .0 180 .078 385 2 .6 6 . 2 182 . 579 390 5 .2 5 .6 185 .080 395 8 .4 4 . C 187 .581 400 11 .0 3 .6 190.0

84

Table A6 Summary of Results for Test 6 (Type IV Fabric, reverse flow, anddetergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

OBS TT_ME PIRESSURF, TUBE VOLUNR

1 0 0. .0 10 .5 2 .52 5 0 .0 6 .6 5 .03 10 0.0 6 .7 7 .54 15 0 .1 5 .5 10 .35 20 0 .4 5.6 12 .96 2 5 0 .8 511 15.07 30 0 .9 4 .9 17 .58 35 0 .9 4 .7 23 .09 40 1 .0 4 .E 22 .510 45 1 .1 4 .5 25 .011 50 1 .2 4 .6 27 .512 55 1 .2 4 .6 30 .013 60 1 .3 4. 3 32 . 514 65 1 .3 4 .4 35 .115 70 1 .4 4.3 37 .516 75 1 .4 4 .5 40 .017 80 1 .4 4.3 42 .518 85 1 .3 4 .5 45.019 90 1 .3 4.1 47 .520 95 1 .4 4 .1 50 .021 100 1 .5 4.2 52 . 55-22 105 1 .6 4 .4 55.023 110 2.0 4.5 57 .524 115 2 .2 5 .4 60 .025 120 2.6 5. 5 62 .526 125 3 .1 5.8 65.027 130 3 .5 7.8 67 .528 135 4 .1 7 .9 70 .029 140 4 .7 8 .4 72.530 145 5 .3 8 .5 75.031 150 5 .9 8.6 77 .532 155 6 .2 8 .5 80.033 160 0 .0 9 .0 80 .034 165 0 .4 7.1 82 .535 170 0 .9 4.3 85 .036 175 1 .3 3 .8 37 .537 180 1 .7 3.5 90 .038 185 2 .1 3 .5 92.539 190 2 .6 3 .5 95 .C40 195 3 .2 3 .4 97 .541 200 3 .6 3.5 100 .042 205 4 .1 3.5 102.543 210 4 .6 3.4 105 .04 4 215 5,. 1 3 .6 107.545 220 5 .7 3 .7 110 .046 225 6 .3 3 .7 112.547 230 6 .9 3.9 115 .048 235 7 .5 4 .1 117 .549 240 8 .1 5 .2 120 .050 245 9 .3 5 .5 122 .551 250 0 .0 12 .0 122 .552 255 1 .2 8 .4 125.053 260 1 .5 6 .4 127 .554 265 1 .6 7 .1 130.055 270 1 .7 5.9 132 .5

85

Table A6 Susmary of Results for Test 6 Cont . (Type IV Fabric, reverse flow,and detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

OES '_"i9? PRESSURE TUBE VOLUME

56 275 2.4 5.3 135 .0

57 280 3 .1 5 . 1 137.558 285 3.9 5.2 140.0

59 290 4.9 5.2 142.560 295 6. C 5.5 145,0

61 300 7.1 5.8 147.5

Table A7 Summary of Results for Test 7 (Type IV Fabric, cross flow, and deter-gent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

86

CBS TIME Ps ESSU$E TUBE VOLUME

1 0 0.0 5 . 1 0 .30002 5 0 .2 5 .0 3 .76793 10 0 .2 4 .7 6 .91074 15 0 .4 4.4 9 .75005 20 0 .5 4 .3 12.44646 25 3 .5 4.4 14 .91077 30 1 .5 4.4 17 .37508 35 0 .6 4 .5 19 .6 25 C9 40 0 .6 4 .5 21 .8336

10 45 0 .6 4 .6 23 .910711 50 0 .6 4 .7 26 .700012 55 0 .6 4 .9 28 .1C7113 60 3 .6 5 .4 30 .125014 65 0 .6 5 .7 32 .142915 70 0 .6 6 .1 34 .160716 75 0 .7 6 .5 36.214317 80 0 .7 6 .8 38,142918 85 1 .2 6 .6 40 .107119 90 1 .7 6.8 42 .071420 95 2 .1 6 .1 43 .821421 10 1) 2 .7 6 .6 45 .642922 105 3 .4 6.1 47.392923 110 4 .0 6 .1 49 .178624 115 4 .9 6 .3 50 .928625 120 5 .7 5 .9 52.607126 125 6 .5 5.9 54.035727 130 7 .0 6 .1 55 .500028 135 7 .6 6 .2 56 .750C29 140 8 .3 5 .8 57 .857130 145 8 .8 6 .0 58.7E5731 150 9 .2 6 .0 59 .571432 160 0.7 11 .0 59 .571433 165 2 .7 7 .2 63 .928634 170 4.1 6.4 66 .642935 175 4 .8 6 .5 68 .642936 180 5 .4 5.4 70.250037 185 5 .8 5.1 71 .642938 190 6 .4 5.1 72.892939 195 6 .6 5.4 74 .0 .00040 200 7.4 5 .4 74.892941 205 8 .1 5 .7 75 .6071

Table A8 Suamary of Results for Test 8 (Type V Fabric, reverse flow, anddetergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

OBS

TINE

PRESSURE

TUBE

VOLUnE

1

0

0.0

22

0. C2

5

0 .0

20

2.53

10

0. C

20

5.04

15

0.2

21

7.55

20

0.6

22

10. C6

25

0 .7

22

12. 5-7

30

0.8

20

15.09

35

C.9

20

17.59

40

1 .0

21

20. C10

45

1 .0

21

22.511

50

1 .0

22

25.012

55

1 .0

22

27.513

60

1 . 1

22

30. 111,14

65

1.1

22

32. 55515

70

1 .1

20

35.016

75

1 . 1

21

37.517

80

1.2

21

40. C18

85

1 .2

22

42.519

90

1.2

20

45.020

95

1 .4

21

47.521

100

1.5

21

50. C22

105

1 .6

20

52.523

110

1 .6

20

55.024

115

1 .7

21

57.525

120

1.7

22

60. C

87

Table A9 Sumary of Results for Test 9 (Type I Fabric, reverse flow, and ACroad dirt only wastewater) .

88

ODS TIME PEESSURI TURF VOLUME

1 0 0.0 8.2 2. 52 5 0 .2 3.7 5 . C3 10 0 .5 3 .5 7 .54 15 0 . 8 2. E 10 . 11,5 20 1 .0 2 .5 12.56 25 1 .2 2.6 15 .07 30 1 .3 2 .1 17 .53 35 1 .5 2.2 20 .09 40 1 .5 2 .2 22 .5

10 45 1 .5 2.0 25.011 50 1 . 5 2 .2 27 .512 55 1 .6 1 .9 30 .013 60 2 .0 1 . 5 32 .514 65 2 .4 1 . 3 35 .015 70 2 .7 1 .4 37 .516 75 3 .1 1 . 5 40 .017 80 3 .5 1 .4 42.518 85 3 .8 1 . 4 45. 019 90 4 .2 1 .4 47.520 95 4 .6 1 .6 50. C21 100 5 .1 1 .5 52.522 105 5 .5 1 . 5 55.023 110 6 .0 1 .5 57.524 115 0.0 10.5 57 .525 120 1 .6 1 .9 60 .026 125 1 .8 1 .4 62.527 130 2.6 1 .2 65 .028 135 3 .4 1 . 3 67.529 140 3 .9 1 .3 70.030 145 4 .6 1, 3 72 . 55-31 150 5 .4 1 .3 75 .032 155 6 .0 1 .3 77 .533 160 6 .7 1 .4 80 .034 165 7 .4 1 .5 82 .5

Table A10 Summary of Results for Test 10 (Type I Fabric, cross flow, and ACroad dirt only wastewater) .

89

OBS TIME PRESSURE TURF VOLUME

1 3 0.0 3.8 0 .00102 5 0 .1 2.5 5 .66073 10 0 .2 2 .5 11 .05364 15 0 .5 2.3 15 .97505 20 0 .9 2.1 20.61796 25 1 .0 2.0 24 .51797 30 1 .0 2.0 27 .66798 35 1 .0 1.9 30 .49649 40 1 .1 1 .9 33.1929

10 45 1 .2 1.9 35.603611 50 1 .4 1 .9 37 .857112 55 1 .6 1.9 39.857113 60 1 .8 1.9 41 .607114 65 2 .0 1.9 43.178615 70 2.1 1 .9 44 .678616 75 2.1 1.9 46.071417 80 2 .1 1.9 47.321418 85 2.1 1.9 48 .500019 90 2.1 1.9 49 .571420 95 2.1 1.9 50 .607121 100 2 .2 1.9 51 .571422 105 3 .2 1 .9 52 .464323 110 2..1 1 .9 53 .321424 115 2.1 1.9 54 .000025 120 2.1 1.9 54.678626 125 2 .1 1.9 55 .321427 130 2.1 1 .9 55 .892928 135 2 .1 1.9 56.464329 140 2 .1 1 .9 56 .964330 145 2 .1 1 .9 57 .464331 150 2 .1 1 .9 57 .892932 155 2 .1 1.9 58 .250033 160 0.0 5.1 58 .250034 165 0.5 4.3 60 .964335 170 0 .9 2.1 62 .821436 175 2 .1 2.2 63 .892937 180 2.5 2.2 64 .678638 185 2 .5 2.2 65 .321439 190 2.5 2 .2 65 .892940 195 2 .6 2.2 66 .464341 200 2 .6 2.2 66 .928642 205 2 .6 2.2 67 .357143 210 2 .7 2.3 67 .750044 215 2 .7 2.5 68 .1071

Table All Summary of Results for Test 11 (Type IV Fabric, reverse flow, and ACroad dirt only wastewater) .

90

OBS TIME PRESSURE TURN VOLUME

1 0 0 .0 6.2 2.52 5 0 .1 4.7 5 .03 10 0 .2 4.4 7 .54 15 0 .3 4.6 10 .05 20 0 .4 4.1 12.56 25 3 .5 4.6 15 .07 30 0 .6 3.7 17 .58 35 0 .7 3.8 20 .09 40 0 .8 4 .1 22 .5

10 45 0 .9 4.2 25 .011 50 1 .0 3 .6 27 .512 55 1 .0 3 .3 30 .013 60 1 .2 3 .3 32 .514 65 1 .3 3 .1 35 .2'15 70 1 .4 3.1 37 .516 75 1 .4 3 .2 40 .017 80 1 .4 2 .9 42 .518 85 1 .4 2.7 45 .019 90 1 .4 2.7 47 .520 95 1 .4 2.8 50 .021 100 1 .4 2 .7 52 .522 105 1 .4 2.7 55 .023 110 1 .5 2 .4 57 .524 115 1 .6 2.1 60 .025 120 1 .7 1 .8 62 .526 125 1 .8 1.5 65.027 130 1 .9 1 .5 67 .528 135 2 .2 1 .8 70 .029 140 2 .4 1 .6 72 .530 145 2.6 1 .6 75 .031 150 2 .9 1.6 77.532 155 3 .1 1.3 80 .033 160 3 .2 1 .3 82 .534 165 3 .4 1 .4 85 .035 170 0 .0 9 .7 85 .036 175 1 .0 3.4 87 .537 180 1 .2 3 .0 90 .338 185 1 .3 2.5 92 .539 190 1 .5 2 .4 95 .040 195 1 .6 2 .0 97 .541 200 1 .8 1 .6 100 .042 205 2 .0 1 .3 102 .543 210 2 .2 1 .1 105.044 215 2 .4 0 .9 107 .545 220 2.6 1 .1 110 .046 225 2.9 1 .1 112 .547 233 3 .1 1. 1 115.048 235 3 .4 1 .2 117 .549 240 3 .6 1 .2 120 .050 245 3 .8 1 .3 122.551 250 4 .0 1.5 125 .152 255 4 .2 1 .6 127 .553 260 4 .5 1 .5 130 .054 265 4 .7 1.4 132 .555 270 5 .0 1.5 135 .0

Table All Summary of Results for Test 11 Cont . (Typeand AC road dirt only wastewater) .

91

IV Fabric, reverse flow,

OBS T114E PRESSURE TURF VCLt1?!E

56 275 5 .4 1 .5 137 .557 280 5 .5 1 .! 140 .058 285 5 .6 1 .5 142.559 290 6 .0 1 .6 145 .060 295 6 .2 1 .6 147.56 1 300 6 .5 1 ', r_ 150 .062 305 6 .8 1 .5 152.563 310 7 .1 1 .5 155 .064 315 7 .5 1 .5 157.565 320 7 .9 1 .5 160.066 325 8 .3 1 .5 162 .567 330 8 .7 1 .5 165.068 335 9 .1 1 .6 167 .569 340 9 .5 1 .8 170.070 345 10 .1 2 .3 172.571 350 0 .0 15.C 172.572 355 1 .6 2 .3 175.073 360 2 .0 2.1 177 .574 365 2 .0 1 .9 180 .075 370 2 .4 1.1 182 . 5-76 375 3 .0 0 .9 185 .077 380 3 .4 1 .0 187.578 385 3 .8 0.8 190.379 390 4 .2 1 .C 192 .580 395 4 .6 0 .8 195.081 400 5 .1 0.8 197.582 405 5 .5 3.8 203 .083 410 5 .9 0.8 202.584 415 6 .4 0 .9 205.085 420 6 .9 0 .9 207.586 425 7 .4 1 .0 210 .087 430 8 .0 0.9 212 .588 435 8 .6 1 .3 215.089 440 9 .2 1 .5 217. 55-90 445 9 .9 2.1 220 .0

Table A12 Summary of Results for Test 12 (Type I Fabric, reverse flow, andcoagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

OES TIME PRESSURE TUBE 'VOLUME

1 0 0.00 6.2 0.02 5 0.40 5 .5 2 .53 10 0 . 150 5.1 5. C4 15 0 .60 4.5 7 .55 20 0.70 4. 1 10 .06 2 5 0 .80 4 .0 12 .57 30 C.90 4 .2 15.08 35 1 .00 4.3 17.59 40 1 .00 3.9 20 .0

10 45 1 .00 3 .8 22 .511 50 1 .00 4.1 25 . 012 55 1 .10 3 .1 27 .513 60 1 .00 3.6 30 .014 65 1 .10 3.9 32.515 70 1 .10 4.1 35 .016 75 1 .10 4.2 37 .517 80 1 .15 4.3 40 .018 85 1 .15 4 .5 42.519 90 1 .15 4.8 45. 023 95 1 .20 5.1 47.521 100 1 .20 5.2 50.022 105 1 .20 4 .9 52.523 110 1 .25 5.1 55.024 115 1 .25 4 .5 57.525 120 1 .25 4 .4 60 .026 125 1 .20 4 .8 62.527 130 1 .25 4 .7 65.028 135 1 .25 4 .7 67.529 140 1 .25 4 .5 70 .030 145 1 .30 4 .3 72.531 150 1 .30 4.3 75 .032 155 1 .30 4.2 77.533 160 1 .30 4.1 80 .034 165 1 .30 4.0 82 .535 170 1 .35 4.1 85 .036 175 1 .35 4.0 87.537 180 1 .40 3.7 90.038 185 1 .40 3 .6 92.539 190 1 .30 3.2 95 .040 195 1 .40 2 .6 97 .541 200 1 .50 2.5 100 .042 205 1 .50 2.7 102 .543 210 1 .50 2.8 105 .044 215 1 .50 2.8 107 .545 220 1 .60 2.9 110 .046 225 1 .75 2.9 112 .547 230 1 .90 2.8 115 .048 235 2 .00 2 .8 117 .549 240 2.10 2.7 120 .053 245 2 .20 2.5 122.551 250 2.20 2.3 125 .052 255 2 .25 2.2 127 .553 260 2.30 2.1 130 .054 265 2 .40 2.0 132 .555 270 2 .50 1.9 135 .0

92

Table A12 Suarary-of Results for Test 12 Cont . (Type I Fabric, reverse flow,and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

93

0±S- T'I"9E PRESSURE TURN VOLUME

56 275 2.60 1.80 137 .557 280 2 .70 1 .70 140.058 285 2.75 1 .70 142.559 290 2 .80 1 .50 145 .360 295 2.80 1.60 147.561 300 2 .85 1 .50 150.062 305 2.90 1 .50 152.563 313 2 .90 1 .45 155 .064 315 2 .90 1.30 157.565 320 2 .60 1 .90 160.066 325 2.60 1 .80 162 . 567 330 2 .65 1 .80 165.068 335 2.70 1 .70 167.569 340 2 .80 1 .70 170 .370 345 2.90 1.60 172. 55

71 350 3 .00 1 .60 175.072 355 3. 10 1 .60 177 .573 360 3 .20 1 .50 180 .374 365 3.30 1.50 182.575 370 3 .50 1 .30 185.076 375 3.70 1 .20 187 .577 380 3 .50 2.10 190 .078 385 3.60 1.80 192 .579 390 3 .70 2.10 195.080 395 3.80 1 .70 197 .581 400 3 .90 1 .50 200 .082 405 4.10 1.40 202.583 410 4 . 10 1 .50 205.084 415 4 .30 1. 4C 207 . 585 420 4 .50 1 .30 210.086 425 4.60 1.10 212.587 430 4 .80 1 .20 215.088 435 4.90 1.30 217 .589 440 5 .10 1 .20 220 .090 445 4.10 3.8C 222. 591 450 4 .20 2.70 225.092 455 4 .50 1.7C 227 .593 460 4 .63 1 .70 231.094 465 4.70 1 .70 232.595 470 4 .90 1 .50 235.096 475 5.10 1 .40 237 .597 480 5 .30 1 .20 240 .098 485 5.40 1 .20 242.599 490 5 .40 1 . 10 245.0

100 495 5.50 1.00 247.5101 500 5 .60 1 .00 250.0102 505 5.70 1. 10 252. `_103 510 5 .80 1 .10 255.0104 515 4.30 2.8C 257.5105 520 4 .50 2.40 263 .0106 525 5.00 1 .80 262 .5107 530 5.60 1.60 265 .0108 535 5.60 1.60 267.5109 540 5 .70 1.60 270.1110 545 5.80 1.60 272.5

Table A12 Summary of Results for Test 12 Cont . (Type I Fabric,and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

94

reverse flow,

08S TIME PRESSURE TURF VOLUME

111 550 5.90 1 .3 275.0112 555 6 .00 1 .2 277 .5113 560 6.10 1 .1 280 .C114 565 6 .20 1 .0 282.5115 570 6.30 1 .0 285 .0116 575 6 .40 1 .0 287 .51 17 580 5 .70 1 .8 290 . C118 585 6 .10 1 .7 292.5119 590 6.20 1 .6 295.0120 595 6.30 1 .6 297 .5121 600 6 .40 1 .2 300.0122 605 6 .50 1 .1 302.5123 610 6 .60 1 .0 305.0124 615 6 .80 1 .0 307.5125 620 6.80 1 . C 310 .0126 625 6 .90 1 .0 312.5127 630 7 .00 1 . C 315 .C128 635 7 .10 1 .0 317 .5129 640 7.15 1 .0 320 .0130 645 7 .20 1 .0 322.5131 650 6 .80 2 .9 325 .C132 655 6 .90 2 .1 327 .5133 660 7 .10 1 .7 330 .0134 665 7 .30 1 .6 332.5135 670 7.40 1 .5 335 .0136 675 7 .50 1 .5 337 .5137 680 7.70 1 . . 340.0138 685 7 .90 1 .2 342.5139 690 8.10 1 .0 345.0140 695 8 .30 1 .0 347 .5141 700 8 .60 1 .0 350 .0142 705 8 .90 1 .0 352. 5-143 710 9 .10 1 .0 355 .0144 720 1 .10 11 .0 355 .0145 725 1 .30 3 .2 357.5146 730 1 .90 2 .3 360 .0147 735 2.15 2 .C 362 ._148 740 2 .20 2 .0 365 .0149 745 2.40 1 .8 367 .5150 750 2 .50 1 .8 370 .0151 755 2 .60 1 .8 372 .5152 760 2 .85 1 .8 375 .0153 765 2 .95 1 .8 377 .5154 770 3 .10 1 .8 380.0155 775 3 .20 1 .8 382 .5156 780 3 .30 1 .6 385.0157 785 2.90 9 .0 387 . 5-198 790 2 .95 3 .0 390 .0159 795 3 .10 1 .7 392.516 1 800 3 .30 1 .7 395.0161 805 3 .50 1 .7 397 .5162 810 3 .50 1 .8 400 .0163 815 3 .70 1 .8 402 .5164 820 3 .80 1 .9 405.0165 825 3 .95 1 .3 407.5

Table A12 Summary of Results for Test 12 Cont . (Type I Fabric,and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater) .

95

reverse flow,

OBS TIME PRESSURE TURE VOLIIML

166 830 4 .2 1 .7 410 . C167 835 4 .5 1 .7 412 .5168 840 4 .7 1.5 415 . C -

Table A13 Summary of Results for Test 13 (Type I Fabric, reverse flow, andcoagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater with pH control) .

96

OBS TIME P2ESSURE TURE VOLUM7

1 0 0.00 7.1 0 .^2 5 0 .10 5 .2 2.53 10 0.20 4.3 5 .04 15 0 .25 4.0 7 .55 20 0.30 3.7 10 .06 25 0 .30 3.0 12.57 30 0.35 3.2 15 .08 35 0 .40 3.1 17 .59 40 0 .45 3.1 20 .0

10 45 1 .50 3.4 22 .511 50 0 .55 3.1 25 .012 55 0 .60 3 .0 27 .513 60 0.60 3.1 30.014 65 0 .40 3 .9 32.515 70 0.45 3.8 35.016 75 0 .50 3.7 37.517 80 0.60 3.4 40 .018 85 0 .65 3.2 42.519 90 0 .70 3.5 45 .020 95 0 .75 3.7 47.521 100 0 .75 4.1 5L . 10

22 105 0 .80 3.7 52.523 110 0 .85 3.2 55 .024 115 0 .90 3 .0 57 .525 120 0 .90 2.8 60 .026 125 0 .70 5 .2 62 .527 130 0.75 4.7 65.028 135 0 .80 4 .5 67.529 140 0 .80 4.4 70.030 145 0.85 4 .3 72.531 150 0.90 11.0 75 .032 155 0 .95 4.0 77 .533 160 0.95 3.8 80 .034 165 1 .00 3.2 82.535 170 1 .10 3.1 85 .036 175 1 .10 3.1 87.537 180 1.15 3.0 90 .038 185 1 .20 2.7 92.539 190 0.90 3.5 95 .040 195 0.95 2.6 97 .541 200 1 .00 2.5 100 .042 205 1 .10 2.4 102 .543 210 1 .20 2.3 105 .044 215 1 .30 1 .9 107 .545 220 1 .35 1.8 110 .046 225 1 .40 1 .7 112.547 230 1 .45 1.6 115 .048 235 1 .50 1 .6 117 .549 240 1 .55 1.5 120 .050 245 1 .60 1 .4 122 .551 250 1 .30 4.5 125 .052 255 1 .50 4 .1 127 .553 260 1 .60 3.1 130 .054 265 1 .70 2.5 132 .555 270 1 .80 2.7 135 .0

Table A13 Summary of Results for Test 13 Cont . (Type I .Fabric, reverseflow, and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater with pH con-trol) .

97

ORS TINE PRESSUR! TURF VOLUME

56 275 1 .80 2.3 137 .557 280 1 .85 2 .3 140.058 285 1 .90 2.3 142 .559 290 1 .90 2.2 145.060 295 1 .95 2 .4 147 .561 300 1 .95 2 .4 150.062 305 2.00 2.2 152 .563 310 2.10 2 .2 155.064 315 1 .60 3 .1 157 .565 320 1 .70 1 .9 160.066 325 1 .80 1 .8 162 .567 330 1 .90 1 .4 165 .068 335 2.00 1 .4 167.569 340 2.10 1 .2 170 .070 345 2 .20 1 .2 172 .571 350 2 .30 1 .2 175 .072 355 2.40 1 .2 177.573 360 2 .40 1 .2 180 .074 365 2.50 1 .2 182.575 370 2 .60 1 .2 185 .376 375 2 .60 1 .2 187.577 380 2.00 4 .1 190 .078 385 2.40 3.1 192.579 390 2 .50 1 .5 195 .080 395 2 .60 1 .3 197 .581 400 2 .70 1 .2 203 .082 405 2.70 1 .0 202.83 410 2 .70 1 .0 205.084 415 2 .8.0 1 .0 207.585 420 2.80 1 .1 210 .096 425 2.90 1 .0 212 .587 430 2 .95 1 .0 215 .088 435 3 .00 1 .0 217.589 440 3 .10 1.0 220 .090 445 2.70 3 .5 222 .591 450 3 .10 1 .8 225 .092 455 3 .20 1 .8 227 .593 460 3 .30 1 .2 230 .394 465 3 .30 1 .1 232 .595 470 3 .30 1 .1 235 .096 475 3 .40 1 .1 237 .597 480 3 .50 1 . 240 .098 485 3 .60 1.1 242 .599 490 3 .70 1 .2 245 .0

100 495 3 .80 1 .5 247 .101 500 3.90 1 .2 250 .3102 505 4 .00 1 .3 252 .5103 510 4 .00 1 .1 255.0104 515 3 .50 4.2 257 .5105 520 3 .90 3 .8 260.0106 525 4 .00 2.4 262 .5107 530 4 .10 1.4 265.0108 535 4 .20 1.1 267 .5109 540 4 .30 0 .9 270 .0110 545 4 .40 0.9 272 .5

Table A13 Summary of Results for Test 13 Cont . (Type I Fabric, reverie flow,and coagulated detergent plus _ AC road dirt wastewater with pH control) .

98

OHS TIME PRESSURE TORE VOLUME

111 550 4 .5 0.9 275.0112 555 4 .5 0 .9 277 .5113 560 4 .5 0.9 280.0114 565 4 .6 0.9 282 .5115 570 4.7 0.9 285.0116 575 4 .8 0 .9 287 .5117 580 4 .0 5.2 290 .C118 585 4 .7 3 .2 292 .5119 590 4.8 1 .9 295.0120 595 4 .9 0 .9 297 .5121 600 5.0 0.9 300 .0122 605 5 .1 0.9 302 .5123 610 5 .2 0 .9 305 .C124 615 5 .3 0 .9 307 .5125 620 5 .5 0.9 310.C126 625 5 .6 0 .9 312.5127 630 5 .7 0 .9 315 .C128 635 5 .8 0.9 317.5129 640 5 .9 0 .9 320 .0130 645 6 .0 0 .9 322.5131 650 4.7 4 .2 325.0132 655 5 .5 2 .5 327 .5133 660 5 .6 1 .2 330 .0134 665 5 .6 1 .1 332.5135 670 5.7 0 .9 335.0136 675 5 .8 0.9 337.5137 680 5 .9 0.9 340.0138 685 6 .0 0.9 342.5139 690 6.0 0.9 . 345 .C140 695 6 .1 0 .9 347.5141 700 6.2 0.9 350 .0142 705 6.3 0 .9 352.5143 710 6 .5 0.9 355.C144 715 6 .0 5 .3 357 .5145 720 6.2 3.1 360 .0146 725 6 .4 1 .8 362.5147 730 6 .5 1 .2 365 .0148 735 6 .7 0 .9 367 .5149 740 6 .9 0 .9 370.0150 745 7 .1 0 .9 372.5151 750 7.4 0.9 375 .C152 755 7 .8 0.9 377. 55-153 763 8 .1 0 .9 380 .0154 765 8 .3 0 .9 382.5155 770 8 .6 O. S 385 .C156 775 9 .1 0.9 387.5157 785 1 .1 12.0 387 .5158 790 1 .2 4 .2 390 .0159 795 1 .5 2.1 392.5160 800 1 .6 1 .-7 395.0161 805 1 .6 1 .5 397.5162 810 1 .7 1 .5 400 .0163 815 1 .7 1 .5 402 .5164 820 1 .8 1 .5 405 .0165 825 1 .9 1 .5 407 .5

Table A13 Summary of Results for Test 13 Cont . (Type I . Fabric, reverse flow,and coagulated detergent plus AC road dirt wastewater with pH control) .

99

08S TIME PRESSURE TURB VOLUME

166 830 1 .90 1.5 410 .0167 835 2.00 1 .5 412.5168 840 2. 10 1.5 415 . C169 845 2.10 1.5 417 .5170 850 1 .50 8 .0 420 .0171 855 1 .70 3.1 422.5172 860 1 .80 1.6 425 . C173 865 1 .90 1.4 427 .5174 870 2.20 1.4 430 .0175 875 2.30 1 .4 432 .5176 880 2.40 1.4 435.C177 885 2.50 1 .4 437 .5178 890 2 .60 1 .4 440 .0179 895 2 .70 1 .4 442.5180 900 2 .80 1.4 445. C181 905 2 .90 1 .4 447.5182 910 2.40 5.2 450.0183 915 2 .90 1 .8 452.5184 920 3.10 1.7 455. C185 925 3 .30 1 .2 457.5186 930 3 .50 1. 1 460.0187 935 3.60 1 .1 462.5188 940 3.70 1.1 465 . C189 945 3 .80 1 . 1 467.5191 950 3.95 1. 1 470.0191 955 4 .20 1 . 1 472.5192 960 4 .50 1. 1 475. C193 965 4 .80 1 . 1 477.5194 970 5 .10 1. 1 480 .0

100

Table A14 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 2 (first fouling factortest) .

CBS 'rTME VOLII3E

1 7 2502 18 5003 49 7504 111 8505 295 9506 451 10007 767 10508 1150 11009 1632 1 150

10 2289 1200

101

Table A15 Volume versus Time for Effluent in Test 2 (first fouling factortest) .

OBS TIME VOIDME

1 14 5002 28 10003 46 15004 65 20005 75 25006 97 30007 140 35008 172 40009 196 4250

10 228 450011 258 475012 307 500013 348 510014 423 520015 561 530016 683 535017 912 544018 1342 545019 2235 5500

102

Table A16 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 2 (second fouling factortest) .

CBS TIME VOLUME

1 7 2502 17 5003 46 7504 1 C5 8505 281 9506 423 10007 757 10508 1091 11009 1423 1 150

10 2315 1200

Table A17 Volume versus Time for Effluent in Test 2 (second fouling factortest) .

103

OBE IrI?!p VOLUME

1 12 5002 25 10003 42 15004 60 20005 73 25006 91 30007 132 35008 165 40009 1e7 4250

10 201 450011 234 475012 283 500013 312- 510014 401 520015 533 530016 651 535017 876 540018 1225 545019 2045 5500


104

OBS TIME VOLUME

1 7 2502 16 5003 43 7504 1C5 8505 282 9506 435 10007 725 10508 1032 11009 1545 1150

10 2019 1200


105

OBS TIME VOLUME

1 15 5002 29 10003 48 15004 68 20005 82 25006 101 33007 152 35008 183 40009 252 4500

10 297 475011 343 500012 523 525013 713 535014 1523 545015 2384 5480


106

OBS TIME VOZUME

1 7 2502 17 5003 45 7504 109 8505 285 9506 415 10007 712 10508 985 11009 1493 1150

10 1973 1200


107

CBS TIME VOLUME

1 16 5002 34 10003 52 15004 73 20005 95 25006 134 30007 175 35008 191 40009 283 4500

10 314 475011 363 500012 578 525013 734 535014 1050 545015 1984 5480


108

OBS TIME VOLUME

1 7 2502 17 5003 48 7504 106 8505 218 9006 286 9507 428 10008 740 10509 1068 1 100

10 1502 115011 2125 1200


109

OBS TIME VOIUME

1 14 5002 28 1'0003 44 15004 62 20005 82 25006 100 30007 122 35008 146 40009 175 4500

10 196 475011 223 500012 254 525013 304 550014 370 575015 408 585016 574 595017 682 605018 8S8 615019 1059 620020 1318 625021 2181 6300


110

L

OBS TIME VCLUME

1 7 2502 18 5003 51 7504 111 8505 227 9006 298 9507 442 10008 769 10509 1110 1100

10 1650 115011 2290 1200


111

e

OBS 1: IRE VOIUME

1 14 5002 28 10003 45 15004 65 20005 88 25006 108 30007 131 35008 156 40009 183 4500

10 235 500011 282 525012 329 550013 393 575314 675 600015 842 610016 1125 620017 2350 6300

Table A26 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 5 (third fouling factortest) .

112

CBS TIME VOLUME

1 7 2502 19 5003 52 7504 113 8505 225 9006 299 9507 434 1000

e8 752 10509 1125 1100

10 1612 115011 2314 1200

113

Table A27 Volume versus Time for Effluent in Test 5 (third fouling factortest) .

OBS TIME VOLUME

1 14 5002 32 13003 48 15004 71 23005 92 25006 115 30007 136 35008 158 40009 171 4250

10 193 450011 213 475012 245 500013 298 525014 320 550015 350 560016 370 570017 409 580018 575 590019 675 600020 795 605021 986 610322 1220 615023 2113 6200


114

OBS TI,!E VOLUME

1 9 5002 24 10003 41 15004 83 17505 173 20006 223 20507 275 21008 363 21509 465 2200

10 568 2250


115

OBS TIME VCLUIE

1 6 .0 5002 12 .5 100C3 19 .0 15004 25 .5 20CC5 32 .0 25006 39 .0 30007 46 .0 35008 53.0 40CC9 60 .0 4500

10 67 .0 50CC11 74 .0 550012 81 .0 60CC13 88 .0 650014 96.0 700015 104 .0 750016 112.5 80CC17 120 .0 850018 128 .0 900019 136.0 950020 144.0 100C021 152 .0 1050022 16 C.0 1100023 168 .0 1150024 176.0 1200025 184 .0 1250026 192 .0 1300027 201 .0 1350028 210.0 140CC29 219 .0 1450030 228 .0 1500031 237 .0 1550032 246.0 160CC33 255 .0 1650034 264.0 17000

116


OBS TIME VOLUEE

1 4 .0 2502 8 .5 5003 14 .5 7504 21 .0 10005 . 28 .0 12506 38.0 15007 76 .0 17508 86 .0 18009 97 .0 1850

10 111.0 190011 132 .0 195012 160 .0 200013 209.0 205014 266.0 210C15 341 .3 215016 436.0 220017 540.0 2250


117

OBS TIME VOLUME

1 5.0 5 C C2 13 .0 10003 16 .0 15CC4 23 .3 20005 30 .0 25CC6 37 .0 30007 44 .0 35CC8 51 .0 40009 58 .0 45CC

10 65 .0 500011 72 .0 55CC12 79 .3 600013 86.0 65CC14 93 .0 700015 100.5 75CO16 138 .0 800017 115.5 85CC18 123 .0 900019 13C .5 950020 138 .0 1000021 145 .5 1050C22 153 .0 1100023 16C .5 115CC24 168 .0 1200025 175.5 125CC26 183 .0 1300027 191 .0 1350C28 195 .0 14000

Table A32 Volume versus Time for Influent in Test 9 (third fouling factortest) .

118

OBS TIME VOLU!E

1 8.5 5002 15 .0 7503 22.0 10004 2S .0 12505 37.0 15006 72.0 17507 151 .0 20008 198.0 20509 .254.0 2100

10 321 .0 215011 426.0 220012 506 .0 2250

Table A33 Volume versus Time for Effluent in Test 9 (third fouling factortest) .

119

OBS TIME. VCLU!F

1 5 .0 5 C C2 10 .0 10003 15 .0 15CC4 21 .0 20005 27 .0 25CC6 33 .0 30007 39 .0 350C8 46 .0 40009 53 .0 45CC

10 60 .0 500011 67 .0 550012 74 .0 600013 81 .0 65CC14 89 .0 700015 97.0 75CC16 105 .0 800017 113 .0 85CC18 122 .0 900019 131 .0 95CC20 141 .0 1000021 151.0 105CC22 161 .0 1100023 171 .5 115C024 182 .0 1200025 192.5 125CC26 203 .0 1300027 215 .0 1350028 227.0 1400029 239 .0 145CC30 253 .0 15000


120

OBS TIME vaLUMI

1 8 .5 5002 23 .3 10003 39 .0 15004 81 .0 17505 165 .0 20006 203 .0 20507 261 .0 21008 352 .0 21509 434 .0 2200

10 569.0 2250


121

OBS TII1y VCLU E

1 6 .0 5002 12 .0 10CC3 18 .0 15004 24.5 20CC5 31 .0 25006 37 .5 30CC7 43 .5 35008 50.0 40CC9 57 .0 4500

10 64 .0 500C11 71 .0 550012 78 .0 600013 85 .0 650014 92 .0 70C015 99 .0 750016 106.0 80CC17 113 .0 850018 120 .0 900019 127 .0 950020 133 .0 1000021 140.5 1050022 148 .0 1100023 155 .5 1150024 162 .0 120CC25 170 .0 1250026 178 .0 1300027 186 .0 1350028 195.0 1400029 204 .0 1450030 213 .0 15000

122


OBS TIME VCLUEE

1 E .5 5002 23 .0 10003 39.0 15004 83 .0 175C5 16E .0 20006 212 .0 205C7 272 .0 21008 375 .0 21509 462 .0 2200

10 593 .0 2250


123

OBS TIME VCLDME

1 6 .0 5C02 12 .0 10003 18 .5 15CC4 25 .0 20005 31 .5 25CO6 3E .0 30007 44 .5 35CC8 51 .0 40009 57 .5 4500

10 64 .0 500011 71 .0 55CC12 78 .0 603013 85 .0 650C14 92 .0 700015 99 .0 75CC16 106 .5 800017 114.0 850C18 121 .5 900019 128 .0 95CC20 135 .5 1000021 143 .0 1050022 151 .0 1100023 159.0 115CC24 167 .0 1200025 175 .0 125CC26 183 .5 1300027 192.0 135CC28 200 .5 1400029 209.0 145CC30 216 .0 1500C31 227 .0 155CC32 236 .0 i6000

Figure Al Turbidity versus Time for Test 1 .

) 1

>

>

>

)

)

)

)

)



000In_in

0000_m

ccWcC0Qo0

wUn-UN

proZ)9U)0o-LLNO

0JoQoC7q_

Wfno

IC)O~-

9j .00

60.00 120 .00

180.00

240.00

300 .00

360 .00

420.00

480.00

540.00

600 .00TIME (MIN)


Figure AS Pressure versus Time for Test 2 .

) )


000inm

0000m

WEEC)cr-o0

W tn-UNLLpro=o(oC)-LL- C\10

-JOa:oLOO

w

M010oo_

0, L -

JL

', L

1L ‚

C.

.) L

9L

OL

X1 .00 50.00

100.00

150.00 200 .00

250.00

300.00TIME (MIN)

350 .00

400.00

450 .00

500.00

rw0


OOO-H

O

1-

O>-C:)

H

HmmaMO

OON

a

UO O O

OO

91 .00

10.00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60 .00TIME (MIN)

O

70 .00

80.00

90 .00

100.00

1


00

00

0OO

LDO~0(n~O

OON

O

01.00

10.00

u

u

u

0

20 .00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00TIME (MIN)

70 .00 80 .00

90.00i100.00

FrWN


000W_in

0O00-(n

QWCc 0QO0W to

UNQtccc3 ONOO_Lj-ND

I-c)JL-O0

Ln-c3MN,

OJOQoC70_

WE=OIn00

->ui

u

X1 .00

10.00

20.00

30 .00

40.00

50.00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00TIME (MIN)

O>.O

'-4

Hmccc :)=)d

C)N

00

OO

91 .00

15.00

30.00

L15 .00

0 0

60 .00

75.00

90.00TIME (MIN)

i 105.00

120 .00

1 '35 . 00

1 150 . 00

f

7

)

)

)


00

IrWW

N_.r

OOC:)-

C)Om

I-

HW Figure All Pressure versus Time for Test 4 .

00

00N_

O0

H

VO

H0

00

00N

O

Ju

I

Yu

J

JLA

u

X1 .00

15.00

30.00

.00

60.00

75.00

90 .00

105.00

120.00

135.00

150 .00TIME (MIN)


00

000C:)-(n

W(EC)Q0.0

UNQLL-pr-o=0U)0

C)-t,-CVL7

I-c)LL - C)

0.Ln-O

oJoc r-0C!)0-

Lii

JOo~-

00

`b .00

15.00 30 .00

45.00

60.00

75.00

90 .00TIME (MIN)

- ee 51

105 .00

120.00

135.00

150 .00

Figure A13 Turbidity versus Time for Test S .

)

Figure A14 Pressure versus Time for Test S .

00=F-

C)ON-

C3OO_.r

W~0~OU)cnm

.

WccOL

O0

OON

O, .

V

JY

J J

J

U

u

u

u

U

'0 .00

40.00

80.00

120.00

160.00

200.00

240.00

280.00

320.00

360.00

400 .00TIME (MIN)

V

11

V

V

I

Figure A1S Filtered Volume versus Time for Test S .

0O0In-co

000C3-M

wM C3•OO

WLnUNQLia OnON0OLj-NO

N-0LL O

O.U1OU)

0JOaUO_

c.00I

I

40 .00

80.00

1I20 .00 160 .00

200 .00

240.00

280.00

320.00

360.00TIME (MIN)

I400 .00

1

Hwko


H0

)


1

H4-1FA

Figure A1 8 Filtered Volume versus Time for Test 6 .

000m

000o_m

QWn 0•00Win_

UNQLcc o=oV)o0

LL-NO

F-0LL00±

~c3 ' _U)

0.Jocr-oU0_w

Jo

~-

J

9j .00

30.00

60 .00

90 .00

120.00

150.00

180.00TIME (MIN)

210 .00

240.00

270.00

300.00


OON.-a

OO

OO

O>-OF-~p -HQHmMb

O0N

00

00Oo 0 o

0

0 0

0

OO

`1 .00

25.00

50.00

75.00

100.00

125.00

150.00

175.00

200.00

225.00

250.00TIME (MIN)

ALO


'0 .00

00

50.00

75.00

100.00

125.00

1 0.00

175.00

200.00

225.00

250.00TIME (MIN)


000Inm

0000cn

WQoC

W N-UN

LLmo=o(noo_Li-NO

F-o1o

0Jo•oCO0-LU

MoJoO~-

00

9 .00

25.00

50.00

75.00 100 .00

125.00

150.00

175.00

200.00

225.00

250.00TIME (MIN)

rIn


00N

0b0±

-cm

00}-NH0HmM0=10

00

00`1 .00

12.00

21.00

36.00

48.00

60 .00

72.00TIME (MIN)

±

o o o v o o o%J U

U U

U U

u

O O

O O

O

O

O O

81 .00

96.00

108.00

120.00


OO

0O

N_

OO

0-..a

LO0"O(n .-iL GO

00

00

N

u

uu u u

U u

uU

u u

U

/'0.0012.00

24.00

36.00

48 .00

60.00

72.00

84.00

96.00

108.00

120.00TIME (MIN)

a

NV


000Ln-m

C00b_cn

QW'CoQ o0Win_

UN

li'CoMOo_OF-oUo0

~ _O^(r)

oJoQoUo_

W7-noJo>u)

u u u u u u tj

9 .00

12 00

24.00

36.00

48.00

60.00

72.00

84.00

96.00

108.00

120.00TIME (MIN)

r00


0aN

OO

OQ

-303

E-

OON

uu

Qu

U U vU

aO

'b .00

20.00

40.00

60.00

80.00

100.00

120.00

140.00

160.00

160.00

200.00TIME (MIN)

1s

Ht0


0O

w

OO0.-a

(DC)HO

LuCZ)OU)O._

Wcco_0O

OON

u

X1 .00

U U

U

J

uJ

J

U

U

U

J

J

4

O

O OO 0O

20 .00

40.00

60.00 80 .00

100.00

1TIME (MIN)

V

U

20 .00

140.00

160.00

180.00

200.00

C)0C)W_in

C)O0m

Wc‚Qo0

LLJtnUQU -ma-nQU7o0-

LLNU

F-0LL Q0

C3-

O10

d OC70

w

=)OJoON_

11

`b .oo

20 .00

40 .00

6b .oo

8,0 .00

loo .oo izo .oo 140.0o 1'x0 .00 1180 .00 200 .00TIME (MIN)




) 1


000cn

000C-m

WCCOCE-90

Win-UNQlimo

=)o(110o_L ~LN

0I-C"-0

0-~to

0JOcco170_

009.00

25 .00

50.00

75.00

a

100 .00

125 .00

150.00

175.00

200.00

225 .00

250 .00TIME (MIN)


OO

O0

C:)-

C3O

.;a,

O~O

~_ CCI

O

mCCO=3OHam;

OON

v

u1 u

Do

uua ..u .u

J

OO 00

O

O

00

'0 .00

50.00

100.00

150.00

U

u

LO

U . U

OOO

OwO

O U' ± . 000U

V uu

O

0

200 .00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

1150 .00

500.00TIME (MIN)

)

)

)

)

)

1

)

1

)

)

1


0O

OON_.-1

OO

LDO

OC)

OON

UUUU.UUU

U

0000

91 00

50.00

100.00

150.00

00

OO

U

Uu

U

u

O00

00O

O00

0O

OO

O

U

U

U

U

i

J

U

U

U

U

200 .00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400.00

450 .00

500.00TIME (MIN)

NON


0O0U)-m

OO0O_m

WCEMCr9O

WIn_UN

U._

Cc O7)OLO o

C3-CUo

I--OIL OO

N

OJO•0UO_

WcL

MOJ O

> ~-

J

J G 'J J

'0 .00

50.00 100 .00

150.00

200.00

250.00

300.00

350.00

400 .00

1150 .00

500.00TIME (MIN)

a

HLnV


O0

OOO-

OO

0~oF-~p-H0HmmQMO

0ON

OO

`0 .00

10.00

2)o

CPOO CD (~

O

O

Ou J

20 .00 30 .00

0

O

0

0

0

0

O0

00 .00

50.00

60.00

70.00

60.00

90.00

100.00TIME (MIN)

X10'


OO

OON

OOO-

cc) .-0-W

w~o=U-)9-(f)(0WCc0

C)O

OC)N

111

41u

OO

c . 00 1

1

1

I

1

I10 .00

20.00

30.00

40.00

50.00

60.00TIME (MIN)

X10'

OO0

O

OOO

1

170 .00

80.001

90 .00

100

Figure A3 6 Filtered Volume versus Time for Test 12 .

O0uiN_N

OOO

LU(roQo

u)Ucn

LLcc0=o(noo-U_mU1-0

U) N~N

(n±

OJOQ O(Oin

LJ

M OJ0Du;> r-

O

91 .00 10 .00

20 .00

30.00

'40 .00

50 .00

60.00

70.00

80.00

90.00

100.00TIME (MIN)

)(10'

Hrn0


00N_

00

00

0>-0

Or-a

m 0)o

00N

D

0Oq~,

O

`OO0 % oD0

~O~000 OO

O

0O

O

0O

0

OOOn

6W0O

9i .00

10.00

2b .00

30.00

00

0

O

O

O

40 .00

50.00

60.00TIME (MIN)

x1O'

O

0

O

0

0 O

0

O

O

70 .00

80.00

90.00

100.00


)

NN


OOUiN_

C)OOin_

QWCC OCr9N

wr`-Um

ILMO10()OO_U_cn0

1--C3Lj-O

U)N _pNU)

OJOo

II .OO 10 .00 20 .00 30 .00

40.00

50.00

60.00TIME (MIN)

)(10'70 .00 80 .00 90 .00 100 .00

1

)

l

1

)

1

)

)

)


rrnw

1

Hrnr


1



0CO

0

0

00

J

WoO

_Jcnl7

0

0

Cl . 00

O O 0

4 .00

8.00

12.00

16.00

20.00

211 .00

28 .00

32 .00

36.00

40.00TIME (MIN)


'0 .00

4.00

8.00

12 .00

16 .00

20.00

24.00

28 .

00

36.00

40.00TIME (MIN)

rn00


J

WO

O

00

0

0

O

00

O

`x .00

4.00

8 .00

12 .00

16.00

20.00

24.00

28 .00

32.00

36.00

40.00TIME (MIN)

1

1


0

0

0

0 oi- .HJ

W0X0JmO

0

0

'b .00

4 '.00

AAA

A

1.00

128

.00 16 .00

20 .00

24 .00TIME (MIN)

28 .00

32.00

36.00

40.00

HV0


H -IJ

W0~0J Q1O

00

N

OO00-

C3O

O0Co

O0m

u

'1 .00

1 '.00

2'.00

31.00 4 '.00

5'.00

6'.00TIME (MIN)

7 1.00

81.00

9.00

10.00

i 1 1


1

OO

N

OOm-

OO1A_..a

OO

H ~

Jv

woX:O_lo)O

OOCo

O0

Y y V Y

Y u

u u

`1 .00

1 .00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00TIME (MIN)


O0

N

O0CO-

OOln-.-a

0-01--N .

J

LUoX:O

Jo,0

C)0Cn

O0m

Q

'1 .00

11.00

2'.00

3'.00

4'.00

5'.00

61.00

7.00

8.00

9.00

10.00TIME (MIN)

J 1


00

N

OOm..

OO

O^ OI-NH.-a-j

WDX:OJm0

00tD

00m

u

`0 .00

1'.00

2' . 00

3'.00

4'. 00

5'. 00

6'. 00

7'. 00

6'. 00

91.00

10.00TIME (MIN)


OO

N

OO

OOtn-

OO

F-N

J

wC3~O=)a;-

ED

OO(a

OOm

u uu u u

91 .00

1'.00

2'.00

3'.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7'.00

8.00

9.00

10.00TIME (MIN)

Documents

DEVELOPMENT OF A TUBULAR FABRIC FILTER